Argue against this!! (Capitalism!)

[Guest]

There is no social system more rational, benevolent, or just than laissez-faire capitalism; no social system which can bring to man as much freedom, prosperity, and peace as laissez-faire capitalism; and ironically, even with socialism in its death throes all over the world, there is no social system which is still more misunderstood than laissez-faire capitalism. This ignorance has lead well-meaning people to believe that capitalism is the system of exploitation, monopoly, and class warfare. Yet without exception, all accusations that are made against capitalism rest upon a flawed moral theory or an economic fallacy, or in other words, to condemn capitalism is to misrepresent capitalism.

What does capitalism have to do with freedom?

Everything. Capitalism the only system in which freedom and liberty can really exist. Freedom means the absence of physical force, including all forms of fraud. An individual is free when force is not being initiated against him, which means that there is only one source of unfreedom for any individual: other men. That is, a man's freedom can only be infringed upon when another person or group of persons initiates the use of physical force against him. The fact that an individual is unfit to run a mile in under four minutes or too poor to buy food is not a violation of his freedom. Why? Because in both of these cases no one is forcibly stopping the individual from attaining his ends. However, the fact that an individual cannot start his own electric company is a violation of his freedom. Why? Because in this case his actions are impeded by the use of force -- the government's legal monopoly on utility companies prevents him from starting his own electric company through the threat of force. Freedom is only a negative, it imposes no positive constraints on other people's actions. In a free (or capitalist) society all men may act as they choose as so long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others -- by violating their rights through force. Subsequently, it is only a government limited to protecting individual rights that fails to violate the freedom its citizens. Since capitalism upholds individual rights as absolutes, capitalism upholds freedom as absolute.

All non-capitalistic societies force some men to live at the expense of others. Whether you are forced to live, in part or in whole, for the sake of God (as in a theocracy), "the underprivileged" (as in the welfare state), or the latest sadist in power (as in a dictatorship) does not matter, it is only the fact that some individuals are violating the freedom of others, not the method by which they do it, that matters.

Is capitalism a just social system?

Yes. In fact, capitalism is the complete embodiment of social justice. In social or political context justice means that every person gets no more, and no less, than what he gains through voluntary association with other men. A capitalist society is a just society because all individuals are considered equal under the law. Capitalism recognizes that it is just for a man to keep what he has earned and that it is unjust for a man, or group of men, to have the right to what other people have earned. Since all people must live independently under capitalism, all of the material values that a person acquires must be earned. Thus, the expression of social justice under capitalism is that what a man earns is directly proportional to what he produces, with no antitrust laws or progressive income taxes stifling his achievement for the sole fact the he did achieve. All other forms of government, such as the welfare state, institutionalize injustice by legally expropriating the property of some men and giving it to others.

Many people have trouble accepting that capitalism is a just system because of the existence of economic inequality. It is observed that famous celebrities and sports stars have very large incomes for work that is perceived as trivial, and that many hard working people make incomes which pale in comparison for jobs that are perceived to be a greater benefit to society. What people must realize is that it is perfectly just for a superstar athlete, even with little or no education, to make a hundred times the income of a scientist who has a Ph.D. and works much longer and strenuous hours. Why? Because the athlete creates enormous profits through ticket sales and product endorsements whereas the scientist generates very little revenue through his research. That is, each of them deserves what they earn, and what they earn is the result of how much wealth each of them creates (Incidentally, this is not to say that the athlete is morally superior to the scientist because he is wealthier). Since each man has the right to the product of his labor, it is completely just for the disparity in incomes to exist, and the only injustice to occur would be or the government to take money from the athlete and give it to those who supposedly deserve it on the basis of their "need."

Remember:

1) the poor are poor because they want to be
2) greed equals progress
3) materialism is the basis of life
4) capitalism has no downsides

[Guest]

The Rich Deserve a tax cut

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER Tom Daschle has opened the year with more of the same old tired rhetoric from the Democrats, whose only strategy is to obstruct the Republican’s domestic agenda.

With the economy still weak and teetering on the brink of recovery from a mild recession, he figures he can make political hay by playing the class envy card and continuing to bash President Bush’s tax cut as “a tax cut for the rich,” a hackneyed expression and not a haymaker, although reminiscent of something else found on the farm.

The truth is this: A poor person never gave anyone a job.

To stimulate the economy effectively, it is necessary to provide that stimulus to those people most capable of creating supply and demand, while employing more people in the process—to businessmen—“The Rich” in the words of the Democrats.

Let me tell you a story that will help you understand what happens when a businessman invests his money in corporate America.

There was a rich foreigner named Joachim who had this idea to start an import-export business in the U.S. He lived in a fancy house in Hamburg, Germany and drove a very expensive Mercedes S-Class 500 series. Starting with $200,000, he hired an American—we’ll call him Greg, because I’m partial to that name—and rented a small office in New Jersey.

Initially there was no business but that changed rapidly. Three months into the first year, Greg hired an assistant. In the first year, the company managed to eke out a small profit of $50,000 on sales of $3 million.

The firm continued to grow during the second year. By now there were four people working for the company, which in addition to providing them a job, also provided them health and life insurance, a pension plan, a year-end bonus, and company cars for Greg and the other sales person.

The second year ended with sales of five million dollars. This grew to seven million by the end of the third year and to nine million by the end of the fourth, during which time the company added its fifth and sixth employees.

By year ten, the company’s sales were over $20 million. By year 15, that figure had risen to $25 million. The company now had eight full-time employees and one consultant.

During those fifteen years the company continued to provide its employees excellent benefits. It purchased over a dozen automobiles for its sales force. After the cars were depreciated, they were traded in and replaced with newer models.

Each person had a PC, which was upgraded often, when newer technology made an older computer obsolete. Some employees also had company-purchased laptops.

The office was decorated attractively and furnished adequately. There was a full kitchen with a microwave, a sink and a large refrigerator that was kept stocked with beverages and snacks.

During this time, six employees purchased houses. Two got married. Ten children were brought into the World, all of them covered by the company’s health insurance.

The company also did something else during those fifteen years. It paid corporate taxes at a combined federal-state rate of about 42%. Additionally, income tax was withheld from the employees’ salaries. Sales tax was paid on all of those automobiles, computers, desks and chairs and other supplies that were purchased. Import duties—another tax—were also paid to the Treasury Department on dutiable items coming into the country that the company sold to its customers.

Management estimates the company has generated and paid several million dollars of tax revenues during the years it has been operating here in America.

Now pause for a minute and reflect on what you have just read.

The story is not fictional. And the rich man, Joachim Moeller, was a real person with a dream to make more money than he was already making in Germany, Hong Kong and China. He passed away several years ago but his memory lives on. When he started J. A. Moeller Inc, he invited people to join him along the way in his entrepreneurial vision. Everyone who did was blessed financially in some measure.

Some were passive beneficiaries—the vendors who sold the company its fixed assets, the banks, which made money on the fees and interest it charged and the federal and state governments, which got fat checks every quarter for estimated taxes.

The more the company sold, the more profitable it became. But everyone benefited—not just The Rich Owner. So the next time some idiot tries to explain to you why The Rich don’t deserve a tax cut, show them a copy of this column.

[Guest]

Leading opponents of President Bush's tax cut are trying to condemn it as a tax cut for the rich. Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD), in an envy-inspired publicity stunt, explained that under the President's proposed tax cut, millionaires would receive enough money to buy a new, fully-loaded Lexus but that the "typical working person" would receive only enough to buy a car's muffler. Daschle's attempt to condemn the "inequity" of the tax cut inadvertently demonstrated the fundamental inequity of the system itself, a system that taxes one individual for as much as a Lexus (and more) while others pay the equivalent of only a muffler.
In any society, let alone one built on the principle of liberty and justice for everyone, this is grossly immoral.

"The rich" deserve every penny of this tax cut, as does every American. In fact, "the rich" deserve much more precisely because they are paying so much more and getting nothing extra in return. Our graduated, or "progressive," tax code imposes nearly 2/3 of all federal income taxes upon only 10% of the population, and more than 1/3 of all federal income taxes upon merely 1% of the population.1

The "progressive" tax system is punitive and unjust. It penalizes those who are more productive for the "crime" of being productive. It is "progressive" only in the sense that as you produce and earn more you are required to pay more in taxes. It is "progressive" only according to the socialist values that aim to reduce all individuals in a society to the lowest common denominator. By any rational interpretation, the graduated tax system is regressive, not progressive—it divides the burden for the government's operations unequally among its citizens. Those required to pay the most—by factors of several 100s in some cases—receive no special privilege for the burden of supporting the rest of society through the entire catalog of welfare state programs. The inequity of our tax system is not that a tax cut would "reward" some with a Lexus and others with only a muffler, but that some people are paying the value of an entire fleet of Lexus' in the first place.

Unfortunately, the Republicans defending the tax cut are avoiding the morality of the taxation issue. They defend it only by appealing to the overall "proportionality" of the tax cut, by which they mean that everyone will receive a similar percentage cut in their tax rates. This means they endorse the principle of unequal taxation. Some have even argued that those who would receive the "Lexus Tax Cut" probably already own a Lexus and therefore their tax cut would probably be reinvested to the benefit of the entire country. By saying this, they embrace the moral premise that those who produce the greatest wealth are duty-bound to the rest of us. The Republicans would be far more effective—and morally justified—to defend this and further tax cuts for "the rich" on the moral premise that these individuals deserve an even greater reduction in taxes.

In fact, these tax cuts are flawed, but not for the reasons that Daschle and others are arguing. They are flawed because they do not redress the fundamental immorality of the graduated tax system as a whole. A more moral tax cut would reform the entire system and put an end to the penalties on those who are successful thus reducing the tax burden on everyone to the same dollar amount. Only this would represent true equality. There is no moral reason to continue this discrimination against "the rich."

[Guest]

First its capitalist fighter, now its a guest.

Plagerizers
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~shadab/capit-2.html

Guest, why don't you try to come up with your own shit instead of plagerizing right-wing idealogues. Your true beliefs are probably not even that right wing.

[Guest]

more plagerism

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2001/feb...ax_cut_rich.htm (http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2001/february/al_tax_cut_rich.htm)

[Vide]

Two words: class struggle.

Good day.

[Guest]

) 1) the poor are poor because they want to be
2) greed equals progress
3) materialism is the basis of life
4) capitalism has no downsides


Hey plagerizer; tell me, does every sweatshop worker in the third world wants to be poor?

Does the exploitation of labor and the uneven distribution of wealth counts a "downside" to you?

How does greed equal progress? Progress has been made in many fields by non-greed inspiration. Every good invention has been made that way.

The only greedy inventions are those you see on the 90second commericals or infomericals; of scams of products that don't work.

[Guest]

@plagerizer
sorry didn't have enough time to read the rest of your greedy bullshit

@comrades
dont mistake me with the plagerizign guest (our IP's are similar)

[SU37]

That first post and second are too long,I don't bother to read them.I will don't usally read Capitali$t garbage.

(Edited by SU37 at 12:45 am on June 19, 2002)

[Guest]

Hello Plagerizer,

I have actually read the first post. It is quite ideological.

In a real debate, the capitalists should go for the issues that they are beign hit on the head with. Here instead, he argues with things that make an argument legitamate. A man should not have their work be stolen, etc.

This doesn't go into the monopoly and exploitation aspect; whcih is precisely what anticapitalists fight against.

[Guest]

Guest,

You should have sited your sources. The message was great, but instead of focusing on the message they will concentrate on the fact that you used something that belongs to somebody else.

Other guest,

Good catch how did you bust him so quickly?

[Capitalist Fighter]

Guest how am i a plagariser? I posted an article written by an anonymous person in the internet. I brought it up on this forum so people could debate its main points. I never once claimed it as my own or said i was responsible for its creation. Now instead of people dealing with the argument at hand, faceless "guests" twist things around in order to sway attention away from what was in fact the subject of this thread. Instead of calling people a plageriser and insulting them try refuting what he/she has posted. That is the point of this thread.
If somebody posted a quote from lenin or marx like "religion is the opium of the masses" and said "refute this", will they too be a plageriser? Come on it's sad that you call people such things when
a) they did not state they created the piece
and
B) it has nothing to do with the argument and the points brought up in this thread whose purpose is to address them.

Also you are insulting of the person for not creating his own articles when you are the one who needs to create an identity instead of hide behind the cloak of "guest" and come in this forum and make smartass comments that are not constructive or wanted. :)

[Guest]

CF, you went on amazon.com, took a review of Kapital; changed some words around (In the end, it said "this book lead to the deaths of millions", you cleaverly changed it to "marxism caused the death of millions"). The rest of the review you just copied over and bacially claimed it as your own.

[Guest]

Quote: from Capitalist Fighter on 2:01 pm on June 19, 2002
Instead of calling people a plageriser and insulting them try refuting what he/she has posted. That is the point of this thread.
If somebody posted a quote from lenin or marx like "religion is the opium of the masses" and said "refute this", will they too be a plageriser? Come on it's sad that you call people such things when
a) they did not state they created the piece
and
B) it has nothing to do with the argument and the points brought up in this thread whose purpose is to address them.
CF, I get pretty pissed off when capitalist propaganda is put forth by a first-time visiting guest who will likely not come back to defend it. He did not site his sources when he copied and pasted the whole capitalist propaganda. He didn't even paraphrase it or anything.

Here we have a bloodsucker taking an article, pasting it over into the board without siting the source or leaving any marks of possibly knowing that it was not done by him. Than he left for himself.

Why should we take this seriously??? Did you even read the shit in those articles?? At first I didn't because I was pissed off at him; than I did. I am sure that not even you, CF, is that right wing. I heard your comments before, you seem to be moderate if anything. Read my earlier posts where I take a bite of Guest's shit and refute it.

Wouldn't it piss you off if a communist came to an all-capitalist board with an FAQ, posting it without making it seem originally written; than leavinging the board? Thats not proper debating comrade. I am still looking for a reason why I should take Guest's worthless plagerism seriously.




Also you are insulting of the person for not creating his own articles when you are the one who needs to create an identity instead of hide behind the cloak of "guest" and come in this forum and make smartass comments that are not constructive or wanted. :)

Oh, Ive posted here quite some time. Check the last 20 or so threads in this forum, I am probably the most common guest you will see on this board.

[Fabi]

capitalism does not ensure freedom.
capitalism is chaos.
capitalism is the opposite of freedom.

this at least very much goes for the 'pure' form of capitalism the article talked about...

capitalism benelovent? what the fuck, i dont think anyone is stupid enough to believe that. if it was for capitalists we still wouldnt have any labor unions or decent working conditions--- we'd still not only have child labor in the third world, but right 'here'... women would be totally fucked (no pun intended), blacks etc. equally so.

most, if not all, achievements that have improved the people's situation are due to, often anarchist, people's movements. THEY WERE NOT GIVEN BY BENELOVENT CAPITALISTS....

the poor do not choose to be poor. even if all worked hard, there'd still have to be poor and weak because the economy is built on the backs of exactly those people...

well, i am too tired to go on..... i dont think it does any good.. so why bother....

[Michael De Panama]

This stupidity deserves nothing more than a rolling of the eyes.

[Mac OS Revolutionary]

Could some of the guests please register? Its very difficult to tell who is who :)

[Capitalist Fighter]

my goodness guest, so far nobody here is better than you in convoluting the truth. Firstly how did i claim it as my own? I would have done that if i had written "by Capitalist Fighter". Secondly i changed the words so it could fit with the article. The subject of the article was the errors of marxism. At the end it said capital is..., now if i had posted that, it would make no sense at all. So i changed capital with marxism to accomodate for the people here and help them understand the article. You think i did it to cover my trails? Yes i would want to do that on an anonymous internet board in case of being found out!!! "rolls eyes".
Thirdly if somebody posted communist propaganda as is the case everyday day in this forum i don't run away even if a nameless guest did, i retort, rejoinder and refute. That is the purpose of this thread .Open discussion not open abuse and insults.

[Rob]

Guest (the one who started this thread), the only thing I need to say is that your definitions of social justice and freedom are flawed to say the least.

[Guest]

Quote: from Capitalist Fighter on 12:30 am on June 20, 2002
my goodness guest, so far nobody here is better than you in convoluting the truth. Firstly how did i claim it as my own? I would have done that if i had written "by Capitalist Fighter". Secondly i changed the words so it could fit with the article. The subject of the article was the errors of marxism. At the end it said capital is..., now if i had posted that, it would make no sense at all. So i changed capital with marxism to accomodate for the people here and help them understand the article. You think i did it to cover my trails? Yes i would want to do that on an anonymous internet board in case of being found out!!! "rolls eyes".
Thirdly if somebody posted communist propaganda as is the case everyday day in this forum i don't run away even if a nameless guest did, i retort, rejoinder and refute. That is the purpose of this thread .Open discussion not open abuse and insults.


What the fuck??

1 - When you edit out little words from someone else's work on Capital to fit your argument on Marxism without citing them, that is plagerism. This is what middle school kids do on their reports. Find shit on the internet, change a few words, and paste it in. Your name is on it. It says it to the left of the post "Capitalist Fighter". If it is an article, just fucking say so.

#2 - Thirdly if somebody posted communist propaganda as is the case everyday day in this forum i don't run away even if a nameless guest did, i retort, rejoinder and refute. . If you are referring to me, I don't post communist propaganda; I write my own. Don't compare me with the plagerising guest simply because I am also a guest.

[Mazdak]

OK Guest, what do you want us to do, tell you if it was our work everytime we write something??? And although i dont have any problem with u being a guest, why not try to register? U do, after all post quite often

[j]

Hey Guest, two words:


FUCKING REGISTER!!!!!!!!


I can't keep track of who is Guest 23.234.654.332 and who is Guest 69.787878.989.IOuLafuckfuckfuck!!!!!!!!

[Borincano]

How laissez-faire capitalism destroyed Chile! (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=389)

[Guest]

Boricano, you actually bothered to cite a source.

Wow

[Borincano]

Guest 68.40.192.188,

Thanks! :) ;)

[Guest]

Quote: from Borincano on 4:07 am on June 20, 2002
How laissez-faire capitalism destroyed Chile! (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=389)


This article is from a pro- commie sight?

[Guest]

Its from an anti-pinochet site

http://www.lakota.clara.net/

[Borincano]

Guest 66.81.76.244,

I think it's from a pro-civil rights commission who want to bring the truth out about Pinochet and his regime and see justice brought forth.

[marxistdisciple]

"A capitalist society is a just society because all individuals are considered equal under the law. Capitalism recognizes that it is just for a man to keep what he has earned and that it is unjust for a man, or group of men, to have the right to what other people have earned. Since all people must live independently under capitalism, all of the material values that a person acquires must be earned."

I am considered equally under the law, but I have been refused extra gours at work because I was off ill for a few weeks last year. People don't get jobs when they are over 50 because they are considered past it. Other races are discriminated against in management positions. These things are against the law, but companies still do it.

It depends what you count as earning. I seem to remember in the californian gold rush, the guys that provided the tools got all the gold. The shareholders do not work but they get an unequal cut of the profits. The people that work on the assembly line make the goods the company sell - without them there is no company. So why do their shareholders and directors make more money? None of that is remotely just.

You said something about the government only intervening when people intrude on other's lives. I don't like the billboards in my city, they intrude on my nice view of the sky. Is anyone going to do anything about that? I don't like TV commercials, they intrude on my watching of good programmes. I hate ugly warehouses but people build them anyway. I dislike people driving fast down back roads, they endanger children. People still do it. Capitalism doesn't stop people intruding on other's rights, no political system can do that (except total opression). In fact, companies think it is your duty to buy their product. We really ought to all buy loreal shampoo, we are worth it. And we ought to all eat big macs, they are so tasty. Everyday, I get told a million times by other people what to do. They intrude on my thoughts, they should be made illegal.

[Conghaileach]

"Every year [in the developed nations], a trillion dollars is spent on advertising... This has never happened before in the history of humanity. Primitive humans enjoyed greater freedom of thought." - Fidel Castro


Just a reflection of what marxistdisciple had to say.

[Mazdak]

WEll, guest, howabout getting a name already?

[dailydivet]

"Other races are discriminated against in management positions. These things are against the law, but companies still do it. "

In Private companies, discrimination is only illegal because of our bull-crap "mixed economy" that gives our Big Brother the right to tell us who we are required to hire. Without Big Brother, discrimination being legal would be great. You know why? Because it would penalize racists. Assuming all Capitalists are money hungry greed-infested dogs (I will assume this premise, in this case), then don't you think it would be to their benefit that they have the largest possible "pool" of applicants to choose employees from? If they only hire people of a certain ethnicity, then they are really limiting the amount of skilled workers that they can have. Discrimination = loss of money. Therefore, Capitalists who discriminate would lose. Capitalism punishes racism, imagine that!

"The people that work on the assembly line make the goods the company sell - without them there is no company. So why do their shareholders and directors make more money?"

I also assume that you believe that someone is holding a gun to the heads of the workers (on the line)? If not, then why don't they just strike or leave? Maybe the reason they don't, is because they believe they are being paid sufficiently! If they thought otherwise, then they would leave, and if they can't afford to leave, then obviously they are being paid enough.

"I don't like the billboards in my city, they intrude on my nice view of the sky. Is anyone going to do anything about that? I don't like TV commercials, they intrude on my watching of good programmes."

You don't like the billboards? Why don't you just look away! As hard to believe as it may seem, the world exists outside of your "wants" and "whims" and last time I checked, it didn't revolve around any one person (I'd better check my sources though). The purpose of human existence is not to create a more aesthetically pleasing environment for you or anyone else, including myself (I know, a real "mind" bender!).

"I hate ugly warehouses but people build them anyway."

I hate your house, but you continue to live in it. Please move it. Another thing about factories: Don't you just hate the place where many people can earn a living and put food on their plates? SO DO I!

"I dislike people driving fast down back roads, they endanger children. People still do it."

Sp… spee… speed limit. Yes, that is it! Speed limit. People are fined everyday for breaking it.
Un… und… understand?

"Everyday, I get told a million times by other people what to do. They intrude on my thoughts, they should be made illegal."

Telling someone what to do? For shame! Whenever this atrocity happens to me, I do a little thing: don't listen. You let a commercial intrude in on your thoughts? Wow, either you are just not trying to resist them, or you are weak-minded and feel the urge to purchase anything someone tells you to.

"Every year [in the developed nations], a trillion dollars is spent on advertising... This has never happened before in the history of humanity. Primitive humans enjoyed greater freedom of thought." - Castro

Apparently Castro is also weak-minded. He can't take McDonald's telling him what to do, he must feel so threatened! Maybe if people (in general) weren't so sheepish and stupid to believe or be persuaded by the advertisements, then it wouldn't be such a big business! If advertisements weren't so effective you think these money-hungry-Capitalist-dogs would spend so much? Nope.

And, to anyone who "refutes" an argument using the following methods may want to checkout the following logical fallacies:

"I am sure that not even you, CF, is that right wing." (Argumentum ad Hominem)
"capitalism benelovent? what the fuck, i dont think anyone is stupid enough to believe that." (Argumentum ad Hominem)
"This stupidity deserves nothing more than a rolling of the eyes." (Audiatur et altera pars: no proof of stupidity)
"the only thing I need to say is that your definitions of social justice and freedom are flawed to say the least" (your definitions, and how would they affect the argument?)

[Imperial Power]

I think I posted that article once in February but your atempts to argue here fall on deaf ears. It's more of a test to see how well you can defend your system and never back down.

[dailydivet]

When you have the truth on your side, then no battle will go unwon.

[Fabi]

"capitalism benelovent? what the fuck, i dont think anyone is stupid enough to believe that."

i explained why.

if capitalists got their way we'd still have slavery, child labor etc. not only in the third world, but right here... well, i went on, but nobody cared.....

of course discrimination works for capitalists... the 'discriminated' people will still need to work somewhere... so they can do the shitty jobs and get paid less.... you do not only get your profits up by having a lot of people working for you... that is bullshit. you get more profits the less your workers get paid. in a capitalist system you can pay them as low wages as you want because they HAVE TO WORK FOR A CAPITALIST.

and guess what, i bet people would get rid of advertising if they had a say in it. they dont benefit from it... it is only annoying.

[Uncle Ho]

You need to get out and see some of the world, capitalism doesn't work for the vast majority of people on this planet, indeed, neither does it work for the planet. My epiphany came when visiting Washington. The self proclaimed leader of capitalism and the "free world". The number of impoverished people simple left to rot upon the altar of so called freedom was mind boggling. Freedom only comes from equality and education and the United States doesn't have either. Have a look around the world before you spout anymore juvenile twaddle !!

[samaniego]

FUCK YOU GUEST!!! What in the world makes you believe that poor people chose to be poor? Or that capitalism has no down side? who chooses to live in poverty, you prick. It's your capatilist system that holds them there. There has to always be a class of people that is willing to produce goods at a very low wage to increase profits. So where's their chance to move up? It doesn't exist. Capatilism in Laizze- Faire form exploits all people. The US had to stop that shit because they were exploiting workers and kids!!! If laizze-Faire was allowed we would have no clean water, trees or air. The enterprise only cares about profit not about any thing else. Capatilism makes people stupid, they slave all day only to come home and watch TV and go and buy the things they saw. I can say that perhaps the only good thing of capatilism is the efficiency of production, but besides that theres nothing that I can see.

[Moskitto]

Where's that Chilean anti-Pinochet site I found. That's a nice read about what Milton Friedman disciples did to Chile and rebuking the myths of Pinochet supporters.

Fortunately, the average European, (even a UK Conservative party member) is intelligent enough to realise how dangerous laizze-Faire capitalism is.

[marxistdisciple]

"Sp… spee… speed limit. Yes, that is it! Speed limit. People are fined everyday for breaking it.
Un… und… understand?"

I was being sarcastic. Uhh uhh understand?

I was replying to an original post indicating that just because we don't like things, doesn't mean they don't happen. You think people in factories believe they are paid fairly? Most jobs in western countries now are in the service industry - our production facilities are mostly in countries with lax labour laws, or at least easily avoidable - the phillapines, china, mexico etc. They provide a much chaper source of labour, governments are falling over each other to provide unlivable wages and cheaper and cheaper labour. You know why? They misguidely believe impovershing their citizens will help their economy. Most of the companies don't even get taxed. They help no one but themselves.
(Source, No Logo, Naomi Klein)

These people work because there are no other jobs - there is a choice between badly paid work, or no work. What would you choose?

You know how many unionized Mc Donalds there are in North America? One. Why do you think that is? ...you think the workers somehow believe their wages are fair? Of course not, you couldn't live off them. Because when they start a union they usually, A) Lose their jobs or B) Have the branch shut down. It is cheaper for Mcdonalds to do this, bad press and strikes hurt the business more.

The new factory workers are the youngsters who work in retail, the people who pour your cafe lattes at starbucks, and the ones who wrap your big macs. You think they are fairly paid? Get real. They are doing the job because they think it will help them get to better things. Three years later they are still there.

"If they only hire people of a certain ethnicity, then they are really limiting the amount of skilled workers that they can have. Discrimination = loss of money. Therefore, Capitalists who discriminate would lose. Capitalism punishes racism, imagine that! "

That's incorrrect. Discrimination helps. It's not necessarily about race though - they target specific groups - ie college students work in WalMart because they are the only ones who would accept such low wages. Racist discrimination is a personal thing, it doesn't really help companies. However, McDonalds is unlikely to hire an older worker - firstly they would complain more about the conditions, younger people are less prone to doing that. Secondly, they have to put up with all sorts of pesky things like maternity pay, and paying a living wage to look after children etc. Maybe people are settling down later nowadays because they can't afford to have children younger. That could be something to research.

Where do you work as a matter of interest?

I used to work at a supermarket, I had to put three palette loads of soap powder on shelves every night. It was a crap job, and we had such a high staff turnover it was scary. I worked with one woman who had to carry on working there although she hated it because her husband had lost his job, and she had kids to support. I worked 3 hour shifts and they paid me £2.55 an hour. I was lucky, some of my friends at 16 worked for £1.50 an hour in shops in the city. That's why there is no minimum wage in the UK for 16-18 y/o....all the retail shops would lose their cheap labour.

[Smoking Frog II]

Although the country of capitialism is free, What about the other countries? They're far from it.
2 words;
Trade Sanction

[Fabi]

i'm reading 'globalization and its discontents'
by joseph stiglitz who used to be some clinton advisor and 'boss' of the world bank... (well, i'm not reading the english original... i only have a german translation...)