Capitalism is depressing

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

Which is why European countries with far more socialist policies than the US are doing much better than we are. Though in a sense, I agree that true socialism could never work in such a large and populated country as the US. It's just too much for a centralized system to handle.

-Sun_Tzu-

Yeah Greece and Spain are doing great.

What does that have to do with my response?

Your reading comprehension seems off today.

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

So is life.

What you just explained is literally every form of government, ever, in the history of time. You can whine about it or you can get over it and just accept that you're part of a system and you always will be, and that you should just strive to be successful.

That's not really a "life is beautiful" arguement, but sometimes you just have to take the pragmatic route and forget that life isn't perfect.

-TheSecondSign-

Man what am I supposed to do about it? Its like I said it sucks, yeah, but am I supposed to be everyone's solution to their economic strife?

No one is asking you to. But passing off people who are fed up with it all as "whiners" is grossly unfair.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Yeah Greece and Spain are doing great.

SpartanMSU

What does that have to do with my response?

Your reading comprehension seems off today.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] So the euro is a socialist policy now? -Sun_Tzu-

What does that have to do with my response?

Your reading comprehension seems off today.

I simply responsed to his false logic.

His logic;

Socialist European countries doing better than capitalist U.S., therefore socialism is better and capitalism has failed.

I simply pointed out that's not the case with a counter example. It's much more complicated than that.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

What does that have to do with my response?

Your reading comprehension seems off today.

SpartanMSU

I simply responsed to his false logic.

His logic;

Socialist European countries doing better than capitalist U.S., therefore socialism is better and capitalism has failed.

I simply pointed out that's not the case with a counter example. It's much more complicated than that.

I never said socialism was better. I was responding to the assertion that everything wrong with the American economy is the result of "socialism". If that were the case, then theoretically, shouldn't the much more socialist nations in Europe all be failing? Some of them are, and some of them aren't. This tells me that the problem isn't socialism in and of itself. The fear of socialism that is taught in American schools is truly remarkable, considering it is no better or worse than capitalism.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] And what specifically did I miscomprehend? In response to the statement that there are european countries with very robust social welfare systems that are doing better than the US (that much is debatable), you responded with pointing out that Spain and Greece are suffering through a solvency crisis. What at all does that have to do with the European welfare state? Radiatedrich91

I simply responsed to his false logic.

His logic;

Socialist European countries doing better than capitalist U.S., therefore socialism is better and capitalism has failed.

I simply pointed out that's not the case with a counter example. It's much more complicated than that.

I never said socialism was better. I was responding to the assertion that everything wrong with the American economy is the result of "socialism". If that were the case, then theoretically, shouldn't the much more socialist nations in Europe all be failing? .

[QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

I simply responsed to his false logic.

His logic;

Socialist European countries doing better than capitalist U.S., therefore socialism is better and capitalism has failed.

I simply pointed out that's not the case with a counter example. It's much more complicated than that.

surrealnumber5

I never said socialism was better. I was responding to the assertion that everything wrong with the American economy is the result of "socialism". If that were the case, then theoretically, shouldn't the much more socialist nations in Europe all be failing? .

Because all countries that use the Euro = socialist.:roll: And you do know that not all countries in the EU use the Euro, right?

Capitalism is the most proven and successful economic system we have to date. Fact.

Capitalism is the most proven and successful economic system we have to date. Fact.

kingkong0124

Even if we assume that's true, all of that "economic success" only benefits the bourgeoisie.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Radiatedrich91"]

I never said socialism was better. I was responding to the assertion that everything wrong with the American economy is the result of "socialism". If that were the case, then theoretically, shouldn't the much more socialist nations in Europe all be failing? .

Radiatedrich91

Because all countries that use the Euro = socialist.:roll: And you do know that not all countries in the EU use the Euro, right?

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

Capitalism is the most proven and successful economic system we have to date. Fact.

Radiatedrich91

Even if we assume that's true, all of that "economic success" only benefits the bourgeoisie.

Not true. Regardless of class status, anyone has the same opportunity to rise. However, that depends on a number of things like education, family, etc.

Why does everyone think capitalism only benefits the rich? Seriously why? Look back in the past where capitalism was nonexistent and you see people were still in the same social class because they were related to royalty. The same with socialism and communism. Yeah everyone's equal except the leader who's more equal than you.

i know a hell of a lot more than you, your comment has zero merit with regards to my post. the ocean being blue has no relevance to a earthquake on mars.surrealnumber5

I'm sure you do, which is why you've taken the high road of resorting to personal attacks. If you're going to blame the status of the Euro on socialism, please at at least have something to back that up.

Not true. Regardless of class status, anyone has the same opportunity to rise.leviathan91

I can see why you'd think that, but as long as we lack equal opportunity for education and health care, that honestly isn't the case at all.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] Yeah, let's beat on the poor and say it's all their fault.iHarlequin

Hooray for made up statements. Let me try. You are a Pol Pot mass murderer wannabee. See how that works?

Instead of throwing out random statements, why don't you try to actually make an argument?

Starting with either the economic principles that lead to capitalism beating on the poor...or a description of the outcomes which you believe to be evidence of your proposition.

I'll start with the latter topic since you seem ill equipped to deal with the former, with two of my own simple outcome based propositions.

1. The poor under modern capitalist societies are vastly better off now than they were before (either pre or early capitalism).

2. The poor under modern capitalist societies are vastly better off than the poor in any other society in this age that is not capitalist.

No, they aren't. Unless by modern capitalist society you mean the twelve or fifteen countries comprised of Canada and a few of Western European countries, and even then, it's not something sure. You may argue that the USSR was a dictatorship, but the nations that were a part of it experienced a leap in quality of life that capitalism could never hope to provide. The difference Lenin and the Communist party made in twenty or so years in Russia was massive - they went from a Monarchic capitalism (a capitalism nonetheless) where the vast majority of the population lived in sub-human conditions to one of the greatest superpowers in the late 40's, with better wealth distribution and public systems (healthcare, education, work) than before. Unfortunately, corruption happened, Stalin happened (I'm not a fan of alternate history (other than for Science fiction), but had Leon Trotsky prevailed along with Lenin's ideals, the world as we know it would be considerably different), and the ideals of the nation were corrupted.

Tito's Yugoslavia, and all the other nations that took independent roads to communism, had better QoL projections than many developed (capitalist) countries have today. Unfortunately, capitalism's 'fantastic plastic' is much more appealing than ideals and concepts.

LMAO. The USSR as a socialist paradise. Priceless. Tito's Yugoslavia as a model for quality of life. Beyond the pale. Lenin and Trotsky's ideals :) :):lol:

Come back when you are actually able to articulate something/anything about the actual economic principles of communism.

In the meantime, your challenge is to explain why the poor in the Soviet Union literally starved to death in the early 30s whereas at that time in the US the poor relied on publicly funded soup kitchens? The fact that you are lauding the murder of millions of people and displacement of millions more under the guise of quality of life is laughable.

When you get born, every squre foot of land around you is owned by someone. So you end up taking orders from your parents for the first 18 years of your life. You go to college and explode with debt. And after you need to get a job to pay it off and end up taking even more orders from the land owners. Capitalism is punishing people for existing.RushKing

[QUOTE="RushKing"]When you get born, every squre foot of land around you is owned by someone. So you end up taking orders from your parents for the first 18 years of your life. You go to college and explode with debt. And after you need to get a job to pay it off and end up taking even more orders from the land owners. Capitalism is punishing people for existing.JoGoSo

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

Socialism is for those who expect to have everything handed to them by others.

RadecSupreme

Not really, in socialism everyone works.

[QUOTE="JoGoSo"][QUOTE="RushKing"]When you get born, every squre foot of land around you is owned by someone. So you end up taking orders from your parents for the first 18 years of your life. You go to college and explode with debt. And after you need to get a job to pay it off and end up taking even more orders from the land owners. Capitalism is punishing people for existing.RushKing

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

In a free liberal society, capitalism benefits the individual. How you think it crushes them, I'll never know why.

There's always going to be winners and losers, there will always be those who are underprivileged, but there are also those who will rise to the greatest potential, and just because there's going to be winners, losers, and the underprivileged, it doesn't mean they're going to be like that forever. Not everyone started off rich, some had to work at it.

RushKing

What!? If we're talking about wage slavery, that also doesn't exist and cannot exist for one simple goddamn reason: If you were a person looking for work, would you honestly take a job that paid .50 cents an hour? Everyone with a brain would say no.

As for slavery itself, again, in a liberal society as in human rights are protected so a corporation can't force you to purchase a product or make you into a slave just because it can.

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

What!? If we're talking about wage slavery, that also doesn't exist and cannot exist for one simple goddamn reason: If you were a person looking for work, would you honestly take a job that paid .50 cents an hour? Everyone with a brain would say no.

As for slavery itself, again, in a liberal society as in human rights are protected so a corporation can't force you to purchase a product or make you into a slave just because it can.

RushKing

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="RushKing"]RushKing

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Doesn't look like you destroyed the argument.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="RushKing"] Capitalism is only individualism for the bosses and landlords.RushKing

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No under capitalism everyone has a chance....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="RushKing"]RushKing

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] And to have a chance you take orders from a boss, unless you have rich parents.RushKing

Because it doesn't exist.

@Radiatedrich91, me knowing more than you, especially in the fields of economics/politics is not a personal attack, you however interpreting my comment beyond what it was*(sees euro, yup.) and stated "Because all countries that use the Euro = socialist. And you do know that not all countries in the EU use the Euro, right?" could be construed as a few different fallacious attacks towards me, even your latest comment. good luck getting me off topic, it will take more than that.surrealnumber5

I apologize if you feel offended, but if you're really so adamant about people not misinterpreting your posts, perhaps you could have been a bit more disambiguous than "sees euro, yup."

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] All systems have bosses dude...

coolbeans90

Because it doesn't exist.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] Not Anarchism.ghoklebutter

Because it doesn't exist.

I have doubts that there was no "bosses" or otherwise people holding disproportionately powerful social or economic influence within those societies either. If that by definition conflicts with Anarchy, then I'm nary too certain that said societies beyond small ones in short-lasting intervals have ever really existed.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Because it doesn't exist.

coolbeans90

I have doubts that there was no "bosses" or otherwise people holding disproportionately powerful social or economic influence within those societies either. If that by definition conflicts with Anarchy, then I'm nary too certain that said societies beyond small ones in short-lasting intervals have ever really existed.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] Obviously it's not nearly as common, but there have been anarchist societies in the past. And besides, that doesn't change the fact that anarchism entails the abolition of employment.

ghoklebutter

I have doubts that there was no "bosses" or otherwise people holding disproportionately powerful social or economic influence within those societies either. If that by definition conflicts with Anarchy, then I'm nary too certain that said societies beyond small ones in short-lasting intervals have ever really existed.

My initial point had to do with the notion that people can necessarily do whatever the fvck they want in anarchy, and more specifically, parameters of what they can and cannot do will likely have something to do with people. I'm not too familiar with a system of the sort that has ever existed. I'm all ears, however.

To some extent, it might be feasible to implement anarchy, but it hasn't seemed to prove itself on a large scale, yet, unlike modern Western social democracies which do a kinda okay-ish job at ensuring people have access to necessities like safety, food, water, shelter, education, health care and some degree of personal autonomy - moreover, they have for the past several decades been improving on most of these fronts. I'm nary too convinced to agree with implementing a political structure which would necessitate the removal of the on in place, particularly when the current system is reasonable and - more importantly, the trend within the system is positive, Slow, but positive.

My initial point had to do with the notion that people can necessarily do whatever the fvck they want in anarchy, and more specifically, parameters of what they can and cannot do will likely have something to do with people. I'm not too familiar with a system of the sort that has ever existed. I'm all ears, however.

To some extent, it might be feasible to implement anarchy, but it hasn't seemed to prove itself on a large scale, yet, unlike modern Western social democracies which do a kinda okay-ish job at ensuring people have access to necessities like safety, food, water, shelter, education, health care and some degree of personal autonomy - moreover, they have for the past several decades been improving on most of these fronts. I'm nary too convinced to agree with implementing a political structure which would necessitate the removal of the on in place, particularly when the current system is reasonable and - more importantly, the trend within the system is positive, Slow, but positive.

coolbeans90

Technically, people can do whatever they want in anarchy, but that's like saying that I can do whatever I want in this current system. In other words, society, with or without a centralized legal system, does discourage and encourage certain kinds of behavior. For instance, in an anarcho-syndicalist society, it's unlikely that a worker who tries to dominate the workplace will be tolerated by other workers and non-workers.

And yes, I do agree that there haven't been many examples of widespread, successfully implemented anarchy. However, I think that the anarchy established in Spain during the Spanish Civil War, while imperfect, shows that anarchy can be implemented on a decently large scale.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"]Too much authority in capitalism. I think it all should just get torn down.RushKing

Plus the systems that have "torn down" capitalism have usually replaced it with something more authoritarian.

[QUOTE="RushKing"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Authority is a necessary thing to keep order and make sure that people act appropriately towards one another. Plus some people rightfully have authority (for instance the authority of a parent over a child).

Plus the systems that have "torn down" capitalism have usually replaced it with something more authoritarian.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="RushKing"] Anarchism has worked many times in history. The paris commune and anarchist catalonia were not very authoritarian.dkdk999

Capitalism needs a large pool of cheap labor to support an upper class of non laborers. In America, we use our legal, education , and economic system to ensure that failure is built in the system for most people to ensure that it works. I do find that depressing. The biggest threat to this, the labor union, has been under attack for decades in America and it is taking its toll as we watch more and more people on each extreme of the haves and have nots.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I have doubts that there was no "bosses" or otherwise people holding disproportionately powerful social or economic influence within those societies either. If that by definition conflicts with Anarchy, then I'm nary too certain that said societies beyond small ones in short-lasting intervals have ever really existed.

coolbeans90

My initial point had to do with the notion that people can necessarily do whatever the fvck they want in anarchy, and more specifically, parameters of what they can and cannot do will likely have something to do with people. I'm not too familiar with a system of the sort that has ever existed. I'm all ears, however.

To some extent, it might be feasible to implement anarchy, but it hasn't seemed to prove itself on a large scale, yet, unlike modern Western social democracies which do a kinda okay-ish job at ensuring people have access to necessities like safety, food, water, shelter, education, health care and some degree of personal autonomy - moreover, they have for the past several decades been improving on most of these fronts. I'm nary too convinced to agree with implementing a political structure which would necessitate the removal of the on in place, particularly when the current system is reasonable and - more importantly, the trend within the system is positive, Slow, but positive.

Capitalism needs a large pool of cheap labor to support an upper class of non laborers. In America, we use our legal, education , and economic system to ensure that failure is built in the system for most people to ensure that it works. I do find that depressing. The biggest threat to this, the labor union, has been under attack for decades in America and it is taking its toll as we watch more and more people on each extreme of the haves and have nots.

EntropyWins

More like in America and Europe they third-party that cheap labour to African and Asian countries.

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

I don't know how people can support a system in which people pay for education, food, healthcare and pretty much every other basic human need and there's the possibility of not having money.

thegerg

So educatos, farmers, and doctors shouldn't be paid for their labor?

What?

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

So educatos, farmers, and doctors shouldn't be paid for their labor?

thegerg

What?

No, it doesn't. I don't think the people should pay for that - not directly -, I think the state should.

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] It seems that you don't think people should pay for food, education, medical care, etc.. thegerg

No, it doesn't. I don't think the people should pay for that - not directly -, I think the state should.

There's a difference between paying an absolute price and paying a relative price. I'm limitting my reasoning to Capitalist states, obviously.

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] In other words, you DO think that people should pay for those tings. It seems that you do support a system in which people pay for those tings. thegerg

There's a difference between paying an absolute price and paying a relative price. I'm limitting my reasoning to Capitalist states, obviously.

Well, no f***ing s***. Sorry, but if you're going to go semantics on me, at least make sense. I argued that it was bad to have to pay for an essential service when there's the possibility of not having money to do so. If it's relative, in the sense that the State collects a cut from what you make, even the unemployed, children and people who have no conditions to pay the current (absolute) price of things would receive the necessary.

When you get born, every squre foot of land around you is owned by someone. So you end up taking orders from your parents for the first 18 years of your life. You go to college and explode with debt. And after you need to get a job to pay it off and end up taking even more orders from the land owners. Capitalism is punishing people for existing.RushKing