Capitalism

[Power1]

What do you think are the major flaws in capitilism. I'm interested to see what you hate so much about capitilism.

I'm a capitilist but the system has flaws. The major problems i see are it produces huge corporations who monalispe the market. Microsoft are a prime example. I hope the supreme court spilts Microsoft up.

My other problem is business owners who import cheap non white labour to increase their profits. They don't care what the consequences of this are.

[Stormin Norman]

Explain to me, how is Microsoft considered to be a monopoly? What effect would splitting the corporation have? The consumer was hurt by the splitting of the Bell coprporation, what makes you think that the consumer wouldn't be negatively impacted iwth a breakup of Microsoft? You don't sound capitalistic to me.

[libereco]

there is so much to hate about it...i can't stand the morality behind it for starters.

but what do capitalists really do?
what does the "owner" of a factory do?
he makes profit. he gets rich of the labour of others - he does not produce anything himself.

I don't understand the whole concept behind this. People that make money of others without producing anything. (or doing a service)
I don't see how shifting money around and getting profit out of it benefits this world or is at all valuable to us.

thats just a quick thought...

[Capitalist Fighter]

libereco the owner of the factory has with his own money set up the factory, set up working conditions for his workers, set himself the responsibility of caring for the factory and his workers, is paying taxes for what is produced and sold and is providing the community with the product or service he is selling. He hardly just gets a factory out of thin air and starts exploiting. Furthermore the people who he hires he provides with a wage which in turn puts food on their table and allows them to continue living their life. That is the same with socialism except the capitalist is the state. Socialism is practically state-capitalism.

[guerrillaradio]

Primarily the lack of equality bothers me. Capitalism favours the fortunate, but leaves the unfortunate to make their own way. It condones, if not encourages, class divisions and hierarchies based mostly on luck. It encourages greed and selfishness, some of the most negatives aspect of humanity in my opinion. Instead of working together to create a better race and evolve, capitalism makes us fight and compete amongst each other. In my five months on this board the phrase I remember most clearly is from the late Kamo's signature: "cooperation not competition". Absofuckinlutely...

[Capitalist Fighter]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 3:30 pm on June 30, 2002
Primarily the lack of equality bothers me. Capitalism favours the fortunate, but leaves the unfortunate to make their own way. It condones, if not encourages, class divisions and hierarchies based mostly on luck. It encourages greed and selfishness, some of the most negatives aspect of humanity in my opinion. Instead of working together to create a better race and evolve, capitalism makes us fight and compete amongst each other. In my five months on this board the phrase I remember most clearly is from the late Kamo's signature: "cooperation not competition". Absofuckinlutely...


Guerrillaradio, in my eyes your post is plagued with many errors.
Firstly you say capitalism favours the "fortunate" and not the "unfortunate". How do you define either one? Furthermore capitalism allows both "fortunate" and "unfortuante" to succeed and make the most out of life for themselves and subsequently the community. Not everyone in capitalism inherits factories and cooperations. One of the most virtuous aspect of capitalism is that people, regardless of age, race, gender and background are eligible to succeed. Capitalism gives everybody the same opportunity. Nobody is stopping me, you or anyone else here from getting some sort of education and making the most out of life. Capitalism allows this to happen and even those starting off as poor and "unfortunate" are able, (as is well documented with Rockeffeler) to climb the social ladder and achieve profoundly.

Secondly, capitalism does not condone or encourage class divisions based on luck. In capitalist nations such as the U.S., England and Australia the most popular class is the middle class. Capitalism allows people from the upper, middle and lower classes to elevate and increase their prosperity. It doesn't hold down people into respective classes, but gives them the freedom to either stay in their class, or succeed further and attain a higher social status. Capitalism encourages success, happiness and the notion that if one works hard enough he is in most cases entitled to his rewards.

Thirdly, capitalism does not encourage greed and selfishness, rather success, freedom and prosperity. There is nothing wrong for the individual succeeding. However one does not succeed in a capitalist society without providing the consumers and therefore his judges os social standings their wants and needs. The degree of success one has is ultimately dependent on the reaction of the consumer. Therefore a coca-cola producer will be successfully because he has fulfilled the wants of the consumers which is to produce coca-cola. This demonstrates the capitalism encourages individual success whilst promoting social gains. Nobody can succeed in capitalism without providing something for the community. By selling a commodity, product or service, they are providing for the people whilst receiving their just rewards which entail money and material possessions. The terms greed and selfishness should be superseded with individual and subsequently communal success.

Fourthly,by encompassing the notion of competition in the free market, capitalism allows people of all race, religion and gender to attempt to produce the best product or sell the best service for the consumers. Competition provides the consumers, the majority of the population, with greater quantity, quality, price and service. Different businesses competing against each other to provide the people with the best possible product only benefit the consumer. Plus socialist countries such as Cuba followed programmes of "emulation", which really meant competition, where factories would try and out do each other in the production stakes. This was another form of competition needed for further human development, success and advances. Competition whether in the market, in school, sport or job allows for greater social progression.

Factors such as competition, goal setting, success, freedom and prosperity are all subsets to capitalism and all contribute to its success.

(Edited by Capitalist Fighter at 4:02 pm on June 30, 2002)

[Moskitto]

My other problem is business owners who import cheap non white labour to increase their profits. They don't care what the consequences of this are.

And what are these "consequences" that you speak of and why only for non-white labour not for say, German labour coming to say, Britain?

[Michael De Panama]

Um...

http://www.nlcnet.org/nike/formosa.htm

http://www.nlcnet.org/resources/wal_mart.htm

http://www.nlcnet.org/resources/gap.htm

http://www.nlcnet.org/resources/disney.htm

Pick one. Yeah, capitalism allows both the "fortunate" and the "unfortunate" to succeed.

[Kilian]

The biggest flaw in capitalism is that it puts money before humans. Lack of equality, meaning the gap between rich and poor. The lack of free hospital treatments means that everyone doesn't have the opportunity to get cure for their illness. That surely isn't equal capitalist fighter

"Yankee, go home" - Carlos Puebla

[American Kid]

What do you mean by "non white"...............?

[Capitalist Fighter]

Kilian i don't totally believe in laissez-faire capitalism. I have stated my beliefs in other threads however i'll give you a quick synopsis. I believe that there should be free enterprise and a market except for human necessities such as education, housing and health care which should be provided to all citizens by the state for free. Free enterprise in consumer goods allows greater quality and quantity as well as cheaper prices.
Also, Michael you take about slave labour well i could easily mention all the slave labour cases during the USSR and during Stalin's industrialisation, during Castro's 1970 10 million tone sugar harvest where all holidays including Christmas and New Years where cancelled to attempt to reach this absurd figure. Pol Pot and his slaves as well as the Chinese sweatshop labour that still considers itself communist.

[ID2002]

Capitalism creates economic and social inequality. The process of a capitalistic system are highly ineffiencant and use of resources (ie. natural resources) are used non-sustainably. The core function of capitalism is to make as much money and or material wealth within the shortest space of time, therefore maximum strain on the ecosystem and surrounding enviroments.
Basically you are making profit without looking down the road...and seeing the consequences of a "get rich fast" attitude!
....thats my 2cents worth.

[Michael De Panama]

Cappie Fighter, you know me well enough to know that I am more against Stalinism than I am against capitalism. Stalinism isn't communism. It's fascism in disguise. Totalitarian "communism" is not a classless society where goods are equally destributed. It's a system of exploitation. It's evil. It is the complete opposite of what the democratic communists want to achieve.

[Capitalist Fighter]

fair enough Michael however those so called "capitalist" nations who adhere to principles of slave labour are not in my eyes true capitalist nations, as countries such as Cambodia and North Korea are not in your eyes true communist nations. Instead of revolution and the supersession of capitalism by socialism, i think there should be reform such as the abolishment of sch sweat shop labour. Capitalism has proven successful around the world, now it needs to prove successful without the expense of others.

[Power1]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 12:04 pm on June 30, 2002
Explain to me, how is Microsoft considered to be a monopoly? What effect would splitting the corporation have? The consumer was hurt by the splitting of the Bell coprporation, what makes you think that the consumer wouldn't be negatively impacted iwth a breakup of Microsoft? You don't sound capitalistic to me.


They are a monopoly in some ways. The UK government considers any firm that has over 25% market share to be a monopoly so that would make Microsoft a monopoly. Another definition of a monoply is a company that can dictate prices to others that makes Microsoft a monopoly.

[Power1]

And what are these "consequences" that you speak of and why only for non-white labour not for say, German labour coming to say, Britain?


White people lose their jobs because business owners fire them so they can make more money by employing cheap labour. The natives then have to work for less money to get jobs which leads to a lower standard of living. I'm not even going to mention all the cultarel and racial problems this causes.

[guerrillaradio]

"Firstly you say capitalism favours the 'fortunate' and not the 'unfortunate'. How do you define either one?"

Fortunate being lucky, ie those born into wealth, or through some economic blip managing to make success. Unfortunate being those born in the Third World, or in the poorer streets of the US' major cities, penniless and therefore helpless.

"Furthermore capitalism allows both 'fortunate' and 'unfortuante' to succeed and make the most out of life for themselves and subsequently the community."

No it allows the fortunate to succeed, and the unfortunate to fail. Irrespective of the ratio of fortunate to unfortunate, it is unjust that some should prosper while others should struggle simply cos of their background.

"One of the most virtuous aspect of capitalism is that people, regardless of age, race, gender and background are eligible to succeed."

But not income. It lets the shallowest and most irrelevant barrier become its judge. How depressing...

"Capitalism gives everybody the same opportunity."

Or, more accurately phrased, it leaves one to fend for oneself, regardless of financial situation and background. In practice, this amounts to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

"Secondly, capitalism does not condone or encourage class divisions based on luck. In capitalist nations such as the U.S., England and Australia the most popular class is the middle class. Capitalism allows people from the upper, middle and lower classes to elevate and increase their prosperity. It doesn't hold down people into respective classes, but gives them the freedom to either stay in their class, or succeed further and attain a higher social status. Capitalism encourages success, happiness and the notion that if one works hard enough he is in most cases entitled to his rewards."

It does encourage class divisions. It separates people based on income and fortune, like I said. Look at the world, you'll see extremely successful people walk past extremely unsuccessful people, without caring. What brings about the difference between these two types. Capitalism, the notion that money equals success.

"Thirdly, capitalism does not encourage greed and selfishness, rather success, freedom and prosperity. There is nothing wrong for the individual succeeding."

Success in itself is not immoral, however the success at the expense of others, and the selfishness and miserness with one's success is immoral. And capitalism and competition encourages that, by changing the definition of success, and emphasising success' importance.

"However one does not succeed in a capitalist society without providing the consumers and therefore his judges os social standings their wants and needs. The degree of success one has is ultimately dependent on the reaction of the consumer. Therefore a coca-cola producer will be successfully because he has fulfilled the wants of the consumers which is to produce coca-cola. This demonstrates the capitalism encourages individual success whilst promoting social gains."

Have you ever read a book about how corporations really work?? Are you even aware of their exploitation of the Third World, and their own countrymen for nothing other than personal gain?? Do you have a clue about the tactics used in advertising, the dirty tricks played on the "all-powerful" consumer?? If not, I seriously suggest you open your eyes...

"Fourthly,by encompassing the notion of competition in the free market, capitalism allows people of all race, religion and gender to attempt to produce the best product or sell the best service for the consumers. Competition provides the consumers, the majority of the population, with greater quantity, quality, price and service. Different businesses competing against each other to provide the people with the best possible product only benefit the consumer. Plus socialist countries such as Cuba followed programmes of 'emulation', which really meant competition, where factories would try and out do each other in the production stakes. This was another form of competition needed for further human development, success and advances. Competition whether in the market, in school, sport or job allows for greater social progression."

It seems strange for a theory that so encompasses the majority vote "two-heads-better-than-one" democractic concept should believe that the power of one man is stronger than the power of several. Surely cooperation and mutual understanding would better the world more effectively than infighting and slander matches??

[Moskitto]

White people lose their jobs because business owners fire them so they can make more money by employing cheap labour. The natives then have to work for less money to get jobs which leads to a lower standard of living. I'm not even going to mention all the cultarel and racial problems this causes.

Then why not try to eliminate racism so that it isn't advantagous to hire non-white workers

And what Racial problems?

[Kilian]

I have always been stunned by the childish blindness of capitalists who can shut their eyes from the oppression. I would like to know what capitalist fighter knows of the time before the revolution of 1959 in Cuba and what the americans have been told of the revolution. I'd also like to know what they have been told of Fidel. So I can laugh at the ignorancy that the U.S government maintains . I must say I'm sorry about my english, which may not be correct, because I'm 14 yrs. old. and from Finland

(Edited by Kilian at 12:18 am on July 2, 2002)

[Power1]

Moskito have you not noticed the racial tensions in Bradford and other cities. A mixed race society will always have racial tension.

[Moskitto]

Actually, studies have shown that there is greater racial tolerance in mixed race areas than in single race areas.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Power1 on 10:20 pm on July 1, 2002
Moskito have you not noticed the racial tensions in Bradford and other cities. A mixed race society will always have racial tension.


Racial tensions are mainly caused by far-right organisations such as the BNP stirring things. Either that, or they're caused by misunderstanding cos of lack of knowledge, again milked by far-right organisations such as the, oooh, I dunno, BNP?? The way to combat this is through mixing races and cultures and increasing understanding. this has been proved by the steady decrease in racially motivated attacks in the last generation. When kids are brought up in a multicultural society, they understand and respect it on a level that far-rightists are incapable of.

[Brian]

If you ask me all forms of Goverment have flaws,Communism has flaws,and Capitalism has flaws.All Goverments are fucked up!

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Brian on 11:19 pm on July 1, 2002
If you ask me all forms of Goverment have flaws,Communism has flaws,and Capitalism has flaws.All Goverments are fucked up!

True, but we're looking at capitalism here...

[Brian]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 11:22 pm on July 1, 2002

Quote: from Brian on 11:19 pm on July 1, 2002
If you ask me all forms of Goverment have flaws,Communism has flaws,and Capitalism has flaws.All Goverments are fucked up!

True, but we're looking at capitalism here... Capitalism has worked pretty good but has been a little fucked up,Canada is a great country and is Capitalist and is a great conutry to live in....being a Canadian myself.

[Capitalist Fighter]

guerrillaradio,

You claim that capitalism is unfair to the unfortunate and favours the fortunate over them. Well let's consider the ideology of socialism. Socialism adheres to the priciple of...

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds".

Now let's analyse that for a minute. This clearly separtes people into divisions. The strongest, most physical powerful person would be able to transport physically more sacks in his respective and hypothetical occupation. This means that his entitlements would be greater and that, because of his naturally physical superiority over another naturally weaker person he would "unfairly" receive more, creating a division between himself and the less weaker person. In other words, because he is able to transport more sacks, he gains because of that. The naturally weaker person however suffers because he cannot accomplish the same deeds as the former, therefore does not receive the same rewards. This is a failure in itself. From each according to his ability, (when ability varies in each case, mostly not because of something other than inheritance), to each according to his deed, (where deed is directly related to ones ability, meaning the most powerful would be able to carry the most) demonstrates that inherent unfairness of socialism. Socialism as evident by this analogy creates divisions in people as not everyone has equal strength, intelligence, et cetera and those who for whatever reason are superior in one sense are also made more wealthier. The "fortunately" powerful and intelligent overshadow in socialism the "unfortunately" weaker and ignorant.

Furthermore, socialism does not adhere to the notion of each wage pay, therefore one person can be richer or poorer then the other. Socialism allows for private property, private enterprises and therefore does not ensure social or fiscal equality for anyone. This creates further class divisions which you claim are only present in capitalism.

Finally, do not say i should read more books and stuff, don't be so arrogant. Just because i don't agree with your political inclinations that does not make me any less intelligent or significant.

(Edited by Capitalist Fighter at 3:26 pm on July 2, 2002)


(Edited by Capitalist Fighter at 3:28 pm on July 2, 2002)

[WolfieSmith]

Capitalist Fighter wrote:

"socialism is practically state-capitalism"

The term "state-capitalism" was first used by the socialist writer and S.W.P. founder Tony Cliff. He used it to denounce the regimes holding power in the U.S.S.R. and China.

Under their brand of "communism" you have one big corporation - the state, owning everything.

An unelected central comitee dictate everything, just as they do under capitalism. And they do it for their own privelige and power. Just like they do under capitalism.

I don't think many people in the Che Lives community want an orwellian "Animal Farm" situation any more than you do.

[WolfieSmith]

Power 1,

On the subject of racial tension, its a case of "divide and conquer". If it is alleged that the authorities spend more money on the asian community than the white community (as in Bradford) this creates anger among the whites against asians.

It *should* provoke anger in both communities that there are not enough opportunities for working people in those areas.

Don't swallow this B.N.P. bullshit. They try to pretend that there are no class distinctions between whites. That is obviously crap.

[Moskitto]

It's true, racial tensions are actually caused by far-right organizations such as the BNP. That's why in mixed race areas with no BNP influence such as Luton there aren't that many racial tensions.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Capitalist Fighter on 3:22 pm on July 2, 2002
Socialism adheres to the priciple of..."From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds".

No, Marxism does, and I am anti-Marxist. Socialism merely calls for financial equality. This renders the rest of your critique of "socialism" irrelevant as I generally agree with it.


Finally, do not say i should read more books and stuff, don't be so arrogant. Just because i don't agree with your political inclinations that does not make me any less intelligent or significant.

My apologies. That was a slight knee-jerk reaction. However, I do feel that the way you view major corporations is very naive. If you haven't already, I suggest you read "No Logo" by Naomi Klein. That should open your eyes.

[Capitalist Fighter]

Guerrillaradio, i'm pretty sure that socialim does adhere to that statement and Marxism or Communism adheres to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" instead of deed. I still think my critique is applicable.
Also no problem about your "knee-jerk" response, i'll look into that book after i also read "Culture Jam". :)

[Capitalist Fighter]

"Socialism merely calls for financial equality."


I must ask how can socialism call for financial equality where their is wage disparity to each occupation and worker? How can it call for financial equality when it allows some private enterprises and private profit amongst them? How can it call for fiscal equality when people can earn different sums of money from others and can venture into private business where they accumulate their profit through surplus value?
This demonstrates that in socialism there are still classes and not everybody is 'financially equal'.

[Lardlad95]

really that depends on you veiw of how socialism is to work.

You can either have a society with a salary cap in which people can earn more money yet the margin isn't large enough to have a class society.

You can keep every wage the same

or you can have people earn money like ina capitalist country but raise taxes and the government pays for housing health care, etc.


There are lots of different options

personally I preffer the salary cap

[guerrillaradio]

"Guerrillaradio, i'm pretty sure that socialim does adhere to that statement and Marxism or Communism adheres to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" instead of deed."

Whatever. My personal view of socialism does not include "from each to his ability to each according to his need".

"I still think my critique is applicable."

In my experience, there is no point preaching to the converted. :)

"I must ask how can socialism call for financial equality where their is wage disparity to each occupation and worker? How can it call for financial equality when it allows some private enterprises and private profit amongst them? How can it call for fiscal equality when people can earn different sums of money from others and can venture into private business where they accumulate their profit through surplus value?"

Obviously an entirely equal society is impractical and impossible, as classes will be established by society regardless of anything. You have put too much emphasis on a classless society. I do not see that as a priority. The priority is taking out the bottom rung of the ladder, and to do so will require also taking out the top rungs. That is logical socialism.

[abstractmentality]

i keep on reading that capitalism gives "equal opportunity" to all, but i am in disagreement with that statement. if one person must work harder then the next to achieve the same outcome, then equality of opportunity does not exist. also, if ones opportunity cost to go to college in the attempt to become, say, the head of a corporation, is much greater then another student who was born with more money, and therefore has less of an opportunity cost to do the same schooling, then equality of opportunity does not exist again.

[Vladimir Ulianov]

Fuck you capies!!!

Go before Revoltion comes!

You really think that History has come its end......Poors!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Vladimir Ulianov on 12:25 am on July 4, 2002
Fuck you capies!!!

Go before Revoltion comes!

You really think that History has come its end......Poors!

Silence, you insolent wretch! Don't you understand that the Soviets were defeated by history's greatest empire?

Now, as we celebrate July 4th, you and Putin bow to your imperial masters!!!!

[Capitalist Fighter]

In my experience, there is no point preaching to the converted. :)

lol. So then let's abandon all forms of debate because you want to maintain your level of ignorance! ;)
Well my critique is applicable to socialist theory? I thought one of the major gripes of socialism is to eliminate classes? I have proven that does not exist. Also i like Lardlad's proposals.

[ID2002]

Capitalist Imperial, you wrote:

"bow to your imperial masters"

I will NEVER bow my head before Imperialism. I will resist it with my mind, my body, and my soul. What you are talking about is against everything I believe in. I believe in socialised instatutions, power to the people and a balanced represented government which is level with regular folk.
I lived in Cuba for 1 year and I enjoyed it very much. Indeed, Castro has done much in the way of great things for his people. Sure, he has done some things that he regrets...and he knows that he has made mistakes as he is human after all. But I think the biggest flaw with the USA is that is lacks understanding and tollerance of other political ideologies. Your country believes in meddling with others politics, and you play one country off the next. Look at where this policy has gotten you....Sept 11 should remind you that many have already died because of this.

[Capitalist Fighter]

ID2002,

I think that CI was joking. If you are you want to resist imperialism then i assume you will therefore not be allied to Cuba who attempted to spread their revolution around the world in places including the Congo, Bolivia and Angola as American attempted to spread their form of capitalism to nations such as West Germany and Grenada. The socialist nations, mainly the USSR in Afghanistan, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, China in Cambodia and North Korea, and Cuba in the above mentioned nations have all adhered to the principles of imperialism. They are no different to the U.S.

[Capitalist Fighter]

"Look at where this policy has gotten you....Sept 11 should remind you that many have already died because of this."

Once again same thing can be said for Russia who when it was the Soviet Union invaded Chechnya and they paid for it with the apartment bombings that killed hundreds.

[Kilian]

CI is joking or he is crazy. I think he is crazy. CF you're just trying change subject. u cannot think that 11/9 happened because of the US government u think so highly of.

[Child of Revolution]

Capitalism benifits the rich.
Communism benifits mostly the poor

[Capitalist Fighter]

Kilian, the subject was American imperialism and their foreing policy catching up to them. I merely expanded it to include the USSR and other socialist nations who were also guilty and responsible for imperialistic crimes such as annexing territories and forcing their ideologies on less powerful nations. That is hardly a crime. Now why don't you answer those cases? Maybe because you don't want to admit to the wrongdoing of the socialist governments you think so highly of. ;)
Also, child of revolution, how does capitalism benefit the rich and communism the poor? I presented a whole critique of socialist theory whilst a supportive post of capitalism and its virtuous. I'm still awaiting a response to them. Thanks :)

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Capitalist Fighter on 3:38 am on July 4, 2002
lol. So then let's abandon all forms of debate because you want to maintain your level of ignorance! ;)

*Ahem* What I meant was we agreed on Marxism, so there was no point debating it, dumb capi. ;)


I thought one of the major gripes of socialism is to eliminate classes? I have proven that does not exist.

Did you?? Really?? Where was I while you were giving this lecture then?? Did I blink or something?? ;) You haven't really "proven" anything, just pointed out a few holes in absolutist socialism, to which I have given my own personal adapted version of socialism.

[Capitalist Fighter]

Listen here you communist scum! You and all your left-wing "comrades" make me sick with your utopian, peace loving, anti-racism, humanitarian [email protected]#!!!! We cappies taught you a lesson in the cold war that you'll never forget! I'll say this one more time to make it clear for all the dupes on this board.
COMMUNISM = STALINISM
STALIN = FATHER OF COMMUNISM
CHE GUEVARA = FOREIGN MERCENARY WHO INTERVENED IN CUBA WHEN HE WASN'T WANTED
LEOPOLD II = CAPITALIST HERO!!!
;) ;) ;)
I love you all commies. ;) lol

P.S. Respond to this gorilla trash!

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Capitalist Fighter on 5:27 pm on July 4, 2002
COMMUNISM = STALINISM
STALIN = FATHER OF COMMUNISM
CHE GUEVARA = FOREIGN MERCENARY WHO INTERVENED IN CUBA WHEN HE WASN'T WANTED
LEOPOLD II = CAPITALIST HERO!!!


AAAHHH!!!!! Capitalist has been reincarnated!!! ;)

[IzmSchism]

what is to respond to CF, your last point makes no sense. so why don't you just ..... fuck off-
-axl rose, 'welcome to the jungle'

[abstractmentality]

Also, child of revolution, how does capitalism benefit the rich and communism the poor? I presented a whole critique of socialist theory whilst a supportive post of capitalism and its virtuous. I'm still awaiting a response to them. Thanks :)


i was wondering which thread this may be so that i can see what you have to say.

[Moskitto]

COMMUNISM = STALINISM
STALIN = FATHER OF COMMUNISM
CHE GUEVARA = FOREIGN MERCENARY WHO INTERVENED IN CUBA WHEN HE WASN'T WANTED
LEOPOLD II = CAPITALIST HERO!!!

At first I thought, oh no, not annother one of these again.

Then I thought, gee this guy doesn't seem to have heard of Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin

Then I thought, ok, perhaps this is just some guys opinion.

then I thought, this guy is having a laugh to try and piss us off.

What is the emotional response?

*Emotion Void*

[Kilian]

Quote: from Capitalist Fighter on 7:27 pm on July 4, 2002
COMMUNISM = STALINISM
STALIN = FATHER OF COMMUNISM
CHE GUEVARA = FOREIGN MERCENARY WHO INTERVENED IN CUBA WHEN HE WASN'T WANTED
LEOPOLD II = CAPITALIST HERO!!!


Stalin like Hitler used socialism to get into power. Che surely wasn't a mercenary He believed in what he was fighting for.
Maybe you're just joking or you truly are that ignorant

[Capitalist Fighter]

I truly can't believe this. I WAS JOKING EVERYBODY. lol. Freak you guys, don't take things so seriously. Hence the wink wink face.
IzmSchism, what is your problem. Don't treat me like crap. I'm not even going to respond to you anymore. I haven't said anything to you, instead i presented a critque of the socialist system and you told me to "fuck off". Gee, real mature mate. Freaken loser.
Abstractmentality, read my posts in this thread, they have not being challenged, guerrillaradio has even stated he agrees with many of them.

[IzmSchism]

I understand, that was real immature, I just had that song in my head for some reason, at the same time I read your post, honestly, I know it came off harsh, it was a poor choice of words. Didn't mean to treat you like crap bro, all my bad.

[Capitalist Fighter]

thanks cool dude. I think i overreacted. Sorry. :)

[abstractmentality]

Quote: from Capitalist Fighter on 4:01 pm on June 30, 2002

Firstly you say capitalism favours the "fortunate" and not the "unfortunate". How do you define either one? Furthermore capitalism allows both "fortunate" and "unfortuante" to succeed and make the most out of life for themselves and subsequently the community. Not everyone in capitalism inherits factories and cooperations. One of the most virtuous aspect of capitalism is that people, regardless of age, race, gender and background are eligible to succeed. Capitalism gives everybody the same opportunity. Nobody is stopping me, you or anyone else here from getting some sort of education and making the most out of life. Capitalism allows this to happen and even those starting off as poor and "unfortunate" are able, (as is well documented with Rockeffeler) to climb the social ladder and achieve profoundly.

Secondly, capitalism does not condone or encourage class divisions based on luck. In capitalist nations such as the U.S., England and Australia the most popular class is the middle class. Capitalism allows people from the upper, middle and lower classes to elevate and increase their prosperity. It doesn't hold down people into respective classes, but gives them the freedom to either stay in their class, or succeed further and attain a higher social status. Capitalism encourages success, happiness and the notion that if one works hard enough he is in most cases entitled to his rewards.

Thirdly, capitalism does not encourage greed and selfishness, rather success, freedom and prosperity. There is nothing wrong for the individual succeeding. However one does not succeed in a capitalist society without providing the consumers and therefore his judges os social standings their wants and needs. The degree of success one has is ultimately dependent on the reaction of the consumer. Therefore a coca-cola producer will be successfully because he has fulfilled the wants of the consumers which is to produce coca-cola. This demonstrates the capitalism encourages individual success whilst promoting social gains. Nobody can succeed in capitalism without providing something for the community. By selling a commodity, product or service, they are providing for the people whilst receiving their just rewards which entail money and material possessions. The terms greed and selfishness should be superseded with individual and subsequently communal success.

Fourthly,by encompassing the notion of competition in the free market, capitalism allows people of all race, religion and gender to attempt to produce the best product or sell the best service for the consumers.

go back in this thread, and you will see something that i wrote to refute the thought that capitalism gives equal opportunity, and you will also see that it has remained unchallenged.
capitalism is a system based on greed. it wants the individual to excel at the expense of the many. products, as you point out, sometimes come out and give something towards communal success, but for the most part, its not done for the community, but rather expressly for the purpose of selling the product, and making money. when that happens, money is put above people. i mean really, do you think the founders of many of the companies make and sell things because they want to help the community, or to make money? it's to, as my old history teacher would say, to make their pile of stuff bigger, and bigger.
free market competition.... not exactly what happens in the us. subsidies all over the place.

as to the reply to your critique of socialism, i think that guerrillaradio answered it quite nicely.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Capitalist Fighter on 1:55 pm on July 5, 2002
I truly can't believe this. I WAS JOKING EVERYBODY. lol.

Yet more proof that I'm the most perceptive member of this forum... ;)


guerrillaradio has even stated he agrees with many of them.

Watch it!! I don't wanna end up in a gulag!! :)

[Lefty]

The inequality. As i understand it, communism encourages equality by abolishing classes, and that i support. capitalism does the opposite, and that is why i dont support it

[Capitalist Fighter]

People, please respond to my critique of socialism, from it's faulty theory such as the "form each according to their ability, to each according to their deed" and all my arguments against it. Capitalism proves itself as the most rewarding and superior system.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Capitalist Fighter on 10:02 am on July 8, 2002
People, please respond to my critique of socialism, from it's faulty theory such as the "form each according to their ability, to each according to their deed" and all my arguments against it.

Firstly, this is a thread intended to criticise capitalism, not socialism. Secondly, I share your misgivings about the Marxist able -> needy theory. So I'll leave it to the Marxists...

[Smoking Frog II]

Equality is lacking