Passive-aggressive capitalist douche.

[Deicide]

Capitalism has failed? I find that shocking, since I just went to a grocery store today stocked with the widest choice of foods human beings have ever had in the 200,000+ long year history of our species and picked out a cheese made in France, a cheese made in Belgium, a locally baked loaf of bread, and some sushi for lunch. My$30.00 dollar transaction will trickle around the world and end up in the pockets of hundreds of people, from rice farmers in the fields of California, to ranchers in Bordeaux, to fishermen way out in the South Atlantic. But hey, enjoy your breadlines, government booze, and paying for apparatchik to live in fancy dachas

How would you respond?

[Ostrinski]

How would you respond?Capitalism has failed? I find that shocking, since I just went to a grocery store today stocked with the widest choice of foods human beings have ever had in the 200,000+ long year history of our species and picked out a cheese made in France, a cheese made in Belgium, a locally baked loaf of bread, and some sushi for lunch. My$30.00 dollar transaction will trickle around the world and end up in the pockets of hundreds of people, from rice farmers in the fields of California, to ranchers in Bordeaux, to fishermen way out in the South Atlantic. But hey, enjoy your breadlines, government booze, and paying for apparatchik to live in fancy dachasIt's in the process of failing. The choices one might have at a grocery store are not a testament to the sustainability of capitalism, merely its perceived grandness taken out of the context of the labor and capital relationship. Antagonisms of class interests can't be ameliorated through the application of more product options. The efficiency and sustainability of an economic mode of production should be analyzed on a structural basis, not an impressionistic basis.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Point out how many people can't afford $30 lunches. In some countries, that would be a month's wages or more.

[GPDP]

First off, I would shy away from the "capitalism has failed" narrative. Saying it failed only plays into the hands of pro-capitalist apologists, since they can point to the fact that it's still running to refute you. It is also an idealist and moralist argument, since it basically implies the purpose of capitalism is to provide for the people, whereas a materialist outlook recognizes capitalism can only ever work for the bourgeoisie. From such a standpoint, capitalism has been a tremendous success. If anything, capitalism fails when the bourgeoisie fails to profit from it.

[Bostana]

Capitalism is a Success?
Because the stock market has risen to the sky and C.E.O's are richer than ever before?
A Success when 1 quart of American Children live in property and 40,000 of them die before their first birth day?
100,000 people line up in New York City for only 2,000 Jobs. What will happen to the 98 million who are turned away? Is that why were building more prisons? A success to who? We have had miracles of Technology we have set a man into the moon but what happen to the people here on Earth?
Why are they so fearful? Why do they turn to drugs and Alcohol? Why do they go kill? And because the politicians say it's a success makes it a success? Don't people know the Histroy of the free enterprise system? When the Government did nothing for the poor and everything for the Rich. When the government gave 100 million acres of free land to the railroads but when they looked the other way when the Chinese Immigrants and the Irish immigrants working 12 hours a day die from the heat and Cold. And when the workers went on strike the government sent the National Guard to smash them into submission. In England little children were put to work in the textile mills because their little fingers can work work the mill. Here in America young girls worked at the age of 10 and died at the age of 25.
Cities were cesspools of poverty and crime.

That is Capitalism then and now.

[Ostrinski]

Capitalism is a Success?
Because the stock market has risen to the sky and C.E.O's are richer than ever before?
A Success when 1 quart of American Children live in property and 40,000 of them die before their first birth day?
100,000 people line up in New York City for only 2,000 Jobs. What will happen to the 98 million who are turned away? Is that why were building more prisons? A success to who? We have had miracles of Technology we have set a man into the moon but what happen to the people here on Earth?
Why are they so fearful? Why do they turn to drugs and Alcohol? Why do they go kill? And the politicians say it's a success makes it a success. Don't people know the Histroy of the free enterprise system? When the Government did nothing for the poor and everything for the Rich. When the government gave 100 million acres of free land to the railroads but when they looked the other way when the Chinese Immigrants and the Irish immigrants working 12 hours a day die from the heat and Cold. And when the workers went on strike the government sent the National Guard to smash them into submission. In England little children were put to work in the textile mills because their little fingers can work work the mill. Here in America young girls worked at the age of 10 and died at the age of 25.
Cities were cesspools of poverty and crime.

That is Capitalism then and now.I apologize for my dickery but this does nothing to disprove the supposed unlimitied sustainability of capitalism, it's just an emotional diatribe.

[Bostana]

I apologize for my dickery but this does nothing to disprove the supposed unlimitied sustainability of capitalism, it's just an emotional diatribe.

The guy think's it is a success.

[Ostrinski]

The guy think's it is a success.It is a success, obviously. Look around you. GPDP said it perfectly.


First off, I would shy away from the "capitalism has failed" narrative. Saying it failed only plays into the hands of pro-capitalist apologists, since they can point to the fact that it's still running to refute you. It is also an idealist and moralist argument, since it basically implies the purpose of capitalism is to provide for the people, whereas a materialist outlook recognizes capitalism can only ever work for the bourgeoisie. From such a standpoint, capitalism has been a tremendous success. If anything, capitalism fails when the bourgeoisie fails to profit from it.

[Raúl Duke]

How would you respond? Personally, I find it funny that this person thinks that's a good argument against why "capitalism isn't "failing" (well, it isn't failing for the elites...at least not now) because it fails to account unemployment, stark and growing inequality, waste, starvation in parts of the world (i.e. isn't capitalism suppose to be an "effective" way to allocate resources, why are people starving?), its negative effects against "democratic" institutions (i.e. corporations and people with the capital have more power in politics), etc. Besides material problems of capitalism, there are other more abstract (perhaps even existential) problems in capitalism. Also environmental/sustainability ones.

Sure, capitalism has allowed for the appearance of retail firms that provide a wide range of goods (as long as you can afford it) but another issue, perhaps the main issue, here is that his argument has this assumption of "that's all there is" and "this is the best we can do" which is ahistorical. In the past, before the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie, conservative/reactionary (in the classical sense) people thought that feudalism and absolute monarchies was the "best we can do" in terms of how to arrange human society.

[citizen of industry]

Capitalism has failed? I find that shocking, since I just went to a grocery store today stocked with the widest choice of foods human beings have ever had in the 200,000+ long year history of our species and picked out a cheese made in France, a cheese made in Belgium, a locally baked loaf of bread, and some sushi for lunch. My$30.00 dollar transaction will trickle around the world and end up in the pockets of hundreds of people, from rice farmers in the fields of California, to ranchers in Bordeaux, to fishermen way out in the South Atlantic. But hey, enjoy your breadlines, government booze, and paying for apparatchik to live in fancy dachas


How would you respond?

$30 for lunch! I pack my lunch and only use the cheapest ingrediants from the store. Sometimes I see the cheeses from France and Belgium, and I drool and wonder what they taste like. I buy the bread that is getting old for 20% discount.

Your $30 transaction goes to land-owners in California who use "illegal" labor to produce rice, giving their workers pitiful wages for back-breaking work with no protection under labor law, and hide behind "free-trade" laws to sell their rice abroad and put local farmers out of business, destroying local economies.

Fisherman in the South Atlantic get a pitiful cut of their catch, the captain gets a double share and the boat owner takes 50% for doing nothing.

We may have the widest selection of food the world has ever seen. We also throw tons of it away every night because people couldn't afford it, while in 2012 with all the technology and food production capacity we have, mass-starvation is still a problem in our world.

[Deicide]

Personally, I find it funny that this person thinks that's a good argument against why "capitalism isn't "failing" (well, it isn't failing for the elites...at least not now) because it fails to account unemployment, stark and growing inequality, waste, starvation in parts of the world (i.e. isn't capitalism suppose to be an "effective" way to allocate resources, why are people starving?), its negative effects against "democratic" institutions (i.e. corporations and people with the capital have more power in politics), etc. Besides material problems of capitalism, there are other more abstract (perhaps even existential) problems in capitalism. Also environmental/sustainability ones.

Sure, capitalism has allowed for the appearance of retail firms that provide a wide range of goods (as long as you can afford it) but another issue, perhaps the main issue, here is that his argument has this assumption of "that's all there is" and "this is the best we can do" which is ahistorical. In the past, before the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie, conservative/reactionary (in the classical sense) people thought that feudalism and absolute monarchies was the "best we can do" in terms of how to arrange human society.

Could you flesh out what you mean by existential/abstract problems?

[RGacky3]

Capitalism was a success .... From the 1700s to 1930s.

So was slavery though, so was feudalism.

[¿Que?]

I think when you ask if capitalism has failed or has succeeded, the following question must necessarily be for whom. If we look at it from a materialist view, yes, capitalism has persevered and has made the bourgeoisie richer. However, with the passive aggressive capitalist's comment, it does seem like he/she is saying, "capitalism has worked, not only for me, but for you too." But as others have pointed out, there are many in the world for which capitalism has not worked. In that case, the counter argument that points out this fact is quiet valid. Because when you take the pac's comments to their logical conclusion, you see that he/she means capitalism has worked for everyone.

[Raúl Duke]

Could you flesh out what you mean by existential/abstract problems? I don't think they're as relevant but think to something akin to the situationists, early Marx (alienation), capitalism's effect on culture, and such.
Capitalism's basic logic is profit-making: All considerations of human, non-human life and objects come into play with capitalism's logic. You're just a producer and a consumer. Things (and some non-human life) are just commodities, etc. This is an inhumane system, capital (a human construct, an abstraction) particularly financial capital has taken a life of its own and it hold all power; I find this absurd and disturbing.

What's relevant is that the douche's argument is ahistorical. As Gacky alludes to:


Capitalism was a success ....
So was slavery though, so was feudalism.

[manic expression]

Haha, that's cute that he thinks buying sushi at his local grocery store will make life better for fishermen in the south Atlantic. Perhaps he might consider the faint possibility that the people who do the actual fishing, transporting and preparing of those goods make very little money when compared to the few individuals who own those industries. He's right in one thing: that his money will "trickle" around the world...while the majority of it will go to the pockets of the wealthy, who will inevitably use some of that to push out smaller competitors like ranchers in Bordeaux or rice farmers in California...so much for the power of his trickling. But who cares when you can buy sushi for $30.00? :rolleyes:

The real issue here isn't the existence of that system of production, it's who gets to control it. Now, if this trickler thinks it's all well and good for ownership to be rewarded instead of actual work, then perhaps he can continue to enjoy his trickle while the ills of capitalism avalanche across entire communities.

[Franz Fanonipants]

presentism/historical chauvinism.

silver from mines in Mexico developed Chinese ports on the south china sea, financed holy wars in Europe, and basically created an economic world system even as early as the 1520s.

the persistence of an economic world system does not equate to success other than for the ruling classes, as they benefit DIRECTLY economically from those systems. meanwhile, being able to buy comte at 6.99 a pound is in fact not a "triumph" for most workers as they still have to worry about buying said comte on wages.

e: all to say fuck i want comte

[trivas7]

It's [i.e. capitalism is] in the process of failing.[...]
Prove it.

[eric922]

Prove it.
Watch the news.

[RGacky3]

When someone says "prove it" as oppoesed to "do you have any evidence?" "How" or "why" or something like that, its basically evidence the guy has no interest in honest discussion and are only interested in debate for debates sake.