Capitalism: Every lefties hate whore [Archive]

Killfacer

17th April 2008, 03:44

First of all this is the first time i post so nobody get to annoyed with me. Also i am young and not used to vicious communist mud slinging. I apologise for the length of the post aswell. Please take your time to read it.

I want to question the radical left wing's innate belief that capitalism is trully evil, a tool of the few used to enslave the unwashed masses. Obviously at it's heart capitalism suggests a kind of dog eat dog supply and demand system in which the most ruthless will become the wealthiest. And there is some truth in that. But (at the risk of sounding like a conservative) isnt there freedom within the idea of being able to make money, the massess are wealthier than they have ever been before and despite what people say, as long as one is willing, social mobility is alive and kicking. As a young man living in a wealthy western country it is hard to see that there is any better political/economic system available to us that could be realistically implimented. It is all well and good claiming to be an anarchist or a communist, without actually considering the the losses the the destruction of our capitalist state would bring.

First of all i dont beleive it can be denied that communism, anarchism and all they other left wing ideologies/economic systems (if they could be called that) completely stifle creativity, invention and individuality. Without capitalism and the objective of wealth hugely important "products" would not have been made. Things like the steam engine were only developed with retailing and profit in mind. Do you think that stevenson would of created his rocket if he had no money and there was no money available to him. Yes one could cite the creation of the internet as evidence of selfless invention but i personally beleive its chances of invention without capitalism were extremely slim.

Secondly one has to look at countries which have long been capitalist and compare these to those that have had egalitarian left wing revolutions. Cuba is a fairly good example. Its economy is in turmoil, with wages actually falling. Yes it has a good health service but this is not a reccuring theme for most post revolutionary states. The stability of capitalism is also a large factor in my belief in its effectivness. Yes England has had tough times economically. Yet England has never been anything but a world power since the napoleonic era. Not revolutionary state has ever suggested to me that it is entirely stable. Fluctuations in world food prices can be devestating and countries like china and north korea are full of workers and peasants who can ill afford the price rises.

Now i have to go over some problems which i can see may well be brought up.

1. Yes france was a revolutionary country which as been relatively stable since Napoleon but i personally would not count it has a post revolutionary state. This is becuase of the circumstance that followed the revolution (namely napoleon becoming emperor)
2. Many of the price rises are caused by capitalism. This is just not true, they are caused by poor crop harvests and natural disasters.
3. Much of the worlds poverty is caused by the capitalist nature of the richest countries. Once again i beleive this to be incorrect. The poverty of these countries is because of other geographical and technological factors. Such as a countries natural resources.

Well i hope you enjoyed my opinions.

Killfacer

Everyday Anarchy

17th April 2008, 04:40

First off, nobody denies that life under Capitalism is better than Feudalism. As Marx said, the proletariat is more free than the serfs. We believe however that Communism or Anarchism is the next logical step in society.

First of all i dont beleive it can be denied that communism, anarchism and all they other left wing ideologies/economic systems (if they could be called that) completely stifle creativity, invention and individuality. Without capitalism and the objective of wealth hugely important "products" would not have been made. Things like the steam engine were only developed with retailing and profit in mind. Do you think that stevenson would of created his rocket if he had no money and there was no money available to him. Yes one could cite the creation of the internet as evidence of selfless invention but i personally beleive its chances of invention without capitalism were extremely slim.This is making the assumption that Capitalism and currency have existed as long as humans. Do you believe that nothing was ever invented before Capitalism, since they would not have been able to copyright, advertise, and profit from it? I think that is extremely stupid to believe that people only invent because they can profit from it. If you tell that to any inventor, you will probably offend them greatly.

3. Much of the worlds poverty is caused by the capitalist nature of the richest countries. Once again i beleive this to be incorrect. The poverty of these countries is because of other geographical and technological factors. Such as a countries natural resources.Have you ever heard of the World Bank or the WTO? Do you believe that they have not had a hand at all in the poverty of many third world countries? Yes, natural resources and geographical factors do make a difference in this matter, but it is Capitalism that prevents humans from simply helping humans. Rather than sharing resources freely, everything has to be marketed and priced. National loans and interest rates, etc have put many third world countries even farther into debt and poverty than would have happened otherwise.

Secondly one has to look at countries which have long been capitalist and compare these to those that have had egalitarian left wing revolutions. Cuba is a fairly good example. Its economy is in turmoil, with wages actually falling. Yes it has a good health service but this is not a reccuring theme for most post revolutionary states.I do not support Cuba as other posters may, but this argument is very poor. Of course a single "socialist" country amidst a world of capitalist countries is going to suffer and have hardships. Capitalist countries refuse to trade with socialist countries and attack them at every opportunity.

Yes England has had tough times economically. Yet England has never been anything but a world power since the napoleonic era.So? Nazi Germany and the USSR were once world powers, does that mean Fascism and Socialism are great? England becoming a world power had more to do with their military than economy, I would say.

As a young man living in a wealthy western country it is hard to see that there is any better political/economic system available to us that could be realistically implimented.Just as the aristocrats and nobility could not see anything realistically being implemented after feudalism. Every ruling class claims that it will rule for the rest of history. Don't be naive.

It is all well and good claiming to be an anarchist or a communist, without actually considering the the losses the the destruction of our capitalist state would bring.Pfft.

Restrict this kid.

Os Cangaceiros

17th April 2008, 05:22

A word of advice: this is the type of post that belongs in the "Opposing Ideologies" forum. Not the "Theory" forum, which is supposed to be for discussing nuances of Marxist and anarchist thought, not whether said philosophies are desirable compared to capitalism.

mykittyhasaboner

17th April 2008, 05:23

welcome to the forums!

And there is some truth in that. But (at the risk of sounding like a conservative) isnt there freedom within the idea of being able to make money, the massess are wealthier than they have ever been before and despite what people say, as long as one is willing, social mobility is alive and kicking.
making money in a capitalist society inst a freedom, its your life's priority. since everyones trying to make money, its not equally distributed, so while some of the masses you say are rich, but there are plenty of others who arent.

It is all well and good claiming to be an anarchist or a communist, without actually considering the the losses the the destruction of our capitalist state would bring.
like what? the overall oppression of society? poverty? famine? i fail to see how any negative losses can come out of dismantlement/destruction of capitalism.

First of all i dont beleive it can be denied that communism, anarchism and all they other left wing ideologies/economic systems (if they could be called that) completely stifle creativity, invention and individuality.
Actually, creativity, individuality, and innovation would be much more prevalent in anarchy or communism. with out the oppression of poorly managed labor, the limitations made by money, and conformity that takes place in capitalism, people could do activities, projects, experiments, and socially express themselves much easier.

The stability of capitalism is also a large factor in my belief in its effectivness. Yes England has had tough times economically. Yet England has never been anything but a world power since the napoleonic era. Not revolutionary state has ever suggested to me that it is entirely stable. Fluctuations in world food prices can be devestating and countries like china and north korea are full of workers and peasants who can ill afford the price rises.
capitalism is not stable; imperialist war, inflation, the ruling class constantly changing policies constantly affects the working class through higher taxes, and lower wages. as far as "revolutionary states", it depends on which one you are referring too. in china, recent development has pulled most of its peasant peoples out of poverty. England has been a world power sure, so that means they've engaged in the worlds largest wars, had slavery, and controlled its various commenwealths around the world ,such as india,
with a very oppressive nature.

1. Yes france was a revolutionary country which as been relatively stable since Napoleon but i personally would not count it has a post revolutionary state. This is becuase of the circumstance that followed the revolution (namely napoleon becoming emperor)
2. Many of the price rises are caused by capitalism. This is just not true, they are caused by poor crop harvests and natural disasters.
3. Much of the worlds poverty is caused by the capitalist nature of the richest countries. Once again i beleive this to be incorrect. The poverty of these countries is because of other geographical and technological factors. Such as a countries natural resources.

1. i agree
2. your correct that some price rises and inflation can be attributed to natural disasters, but if the capitalist nations would spend more money protecting the people/enviroment from natural disasters, rather than their wars, we wouldnt have this problem.
3.yup

hows that for communist mud slinging :laugh:

mikelepore

17th April 2008, 09:39

The thinking in this part is exactly backwards:

First of all i dont beleive it can be denied that communism, anarchism and all they other left wing ideologies/economic systems (if they could be called that) completely stifle creativity, invention and individuality. Without capitalism and the objective of wealth hugely important "products" would not have been made. Things like the steam engine were only developed with retailing and profit in mind. Do you think that stevenson would of created his rocket if he had no money and there was no money available to him. Yes one could cite the creation of the internet as evidence of selfless invention but i personally beleive its chances of invention without capitalism were extremely slim.

Under capitalism, industrial management adopts a policy, such as the devleopment of a certain new product, only if the leading investors are of the opinion that it will be more profitable than the alternative ideas for investing that same capital. What the members of the public would say themselves that they want or need is never even asked or considered. Capitalist industry will even make things that people don't want at all, with the anticipation that sufficient billions of dollars wasted on advertising will subsequently make many people want it.

Socialism is intended to make the wishes of the people become translated directly to industrial policy. Because the management would consists of the elected delegates of the working people, the people could have whatever categories of industrial design and development they prefer, and merely because they want them.

So whatever good kinds of things have been invented and developed under capitalism, socialism would have all of these, and probably a thousand additional ones.

And when the wealth that is now wasted on paying stockholder dividends goes to the workers instead, and we receive all of the wealth that we produce instead of a small fraction, not only will more imaginative things exist, but, also, working people will actually be able to afford to obtain them.

Killfacer

17th April 2008, 13:50

Well first of all i apologise for the mistake in putting this in theory section, but i thought it would get more replies if i put it in theory. Plus ill come up with a lame excuse and pretend to be an anarcho-capitalist (im not actually and i dont even know what that is). I dont know how to quote so i will have to do this by memory!

Well the hostility of the reaction is fairly unsuprising but it is what i wanted.

First of all i believe that the driving force of invention is greed. Yes many inventors would have you beleive otherwise and would likely be offended by what i am implying yet if you look at many great inventors and scientist greed was undeniably part of their motive. Newton tried his hand at alchemy, if this isnt greed i dont know what is. The industrial revolution, the greatest economic and scientific revolution that has arguably ever occurred, was driven by capitalism. Looking further back to scientists and inventors like archimedes i beleive would be pointless as the situation of these people us relatively unknown to us.

Secondly i have to agree with "everyday anarchy" that the statement i made about being a young man in a western country capitalism seems like the best option was incorrect and pretty stupid. Well it was 3 in the morning when i wrote it.

Thirdly id like to attack the idea that everyday anarchy put forward about capitalism aggravating poverty of the thirdworld. I would argue that it more the fault of history than economy that aggravates poverty in the third world. it was the imperialism and colonisation of Africa which has left it in such a poor state. If these countries were not invaded they may have developed to such an extent that they were able to trade on a level footing. I do not beleive anarchy or communism could sort this matter out. Because it is too late. Yes we can do our best to help these countries but the "playing surface" so to speak is too tipped in the wests favour. Technilogically, economically and educationally we are far to advanced that i beleive it will be hundreds of years of a nuclear war before Africa has caught up with the west.

Next id like to attack another one of everyday anarchy's ideas (sorry bout this but i feel i have to defend myself, specially after you said they should restrict me! god i was only putting forward ideas). You seemed to have missed the point entirely with my statement of the stability of England when compared to other countries. You have to look at the longjevity of the reign of these to countries. Communism in the USSR did not last as long as capitalism and democracy have in England, not only stability of the USSR was only enforced by purges and terror. Secondly, anyone who considers Nazi Germany to be stable is foolish. Yes it was powerful but you cannot mistake power for stability. Under Adolf Hitler it laster just under a decade. Not particuarly long i think you will agree.

Finally to every day anarchy i would like to say. Be as rude as you like but dont try and get me restricted (i dont know what it means but it sounds bad). Im simply putting forward my ideas so, under the criticism of people who seem pretty reasonable, i can develop me own ideas. I am actually alot more left wing that this article makes me seem.

Ok now Mykittyhasabonor (good name by the way) disagree with your first criticism entirely. The difference between something being a lifes aim and it being a freedom is fairly blurred in this situation. I beleive you are incorrect becuase one has to choice to make the gathering of money (for want of a better phrase) their lifes priority or they can have it as a neccessity with which they are abled to attain freedom.

Now for your statement that innovation would be more prevelant within an anarchist or communist society. This is simply incorrect. The soviet union was not exactly known for inventing ground breaking products. The ones it did invent, like the nuclear bomb, were not exactly advantagous for the rest of the world. Then theres cuba, i cant think of many great cuban scientists or great cuban inventors. Yes china is good at mass production but is not exactly known for its innovative inventors. Japan is known for this, but is capitalist. England is known for this, but is capitalist. The USA and Europe are both known for this but are capitalist. To suggest otherwise would to be ignoring the evidence.

Yes imperialism is destructive but i do not see it as a neccessity of capitalism. The do not HAVE to go hand in hand, only if your a neo-con do they go hand in hand.

Now i want to tackle the general concencus that England was only powerful because of its military, imperialist power. This is, at its heart, incorrect. The military power resulted from the innovation that occurred during the industrial revolution, innovation that would not have been possible without capitalism. No this does not mean capitalism caused war, it means that for a state to trully advance it is required to be capitalist.

Thanks for replying, i hope my answers have been satisfactory.

Killfacer

Thanks to you lot, being dismissive. I have been restricted. How to i get unrestricted because i am genuinly an anarchist. Just wanting interesting political discussions.

Bud Struggle

17th April 2008, 20:04

Welcome Killfacer!

Good to have another Capitalist fighting the good fight. You made a couple of good posts. And---you are never going to get unrestricted. The commies here are a pretty lockstep bunch, but no matter--all the real fun happens on Opposing Ideologies, the rest of the Forum is just about never ending postulations on the never read third book of Das Kapital. Someday someone will actually be brave enough to actually read all that dull stuff, but for now they can only guess (and then pontificate--at length) on what it says. :D

Welcome!

Raúl Duke

17th April 2008, 20:50

You made a couple of good posts.

Actually....I've seen other OIers do way way much better.

First of all i believe that the driving force of invention is greed. Yes many inventors would have you beleive otherwise and would likely be offended by what i am implying yet if you look at many great inventors and scientist greed was undeniably part of their motive. Newton tried his hand at alchemy, if this isnt greed i dont know what is. The industrial revolution, the greatest economic and scientific revolution that has arguably ever occurred, was driven by capitalism. Looking further back to scientists and inventors like archimedes i beleive would be pointless as the situation of these people us relatively unknown to us.

That might be extremely true in this societies that some inventors today are compelled by money (than again, in this society almost anything can be compelled by money; It's capitalism); but, at the same time, there are those doing R&D work for corporations and don't get to reap the benefits that their invention brings to the company. They still work at inventing though...
Alchemy has nothing to do with greed per se unless you mean the projects attempting to make gold out of something worthless. Although Newton was quite superstitious and got into alchemy because of those beliefs.
Yes, the industrial revolution was brought by capitalism; It's what was to be expected. Every new form of economic arrangement usually leads to further development of the industries. Capitalism created the incentives to create these steam (and further) technology. However, if we use history as a guide (look up "Historical Materialism") every past economical system has reach a dead end where one feature of this dead end (or crisis) is stagnation of application of new technology to the means of production (among other features). Thus, based on history, it is possible that capitalism reach such a "dead-end" (with similar and capitalism-specific features).

I would argue that it more the fault of history than economy that aggravates poverty in the third world. it was the imperialism and colonisation of Africa which has left it in such a poor state. If these countries were not invaded they may have developed to such an extent that they were able to trade on a level footing...

Imperialism is a feature (some state a "stage") of capitalism since it always looks for new markets; just as it was a feature in some form for every other past class society.
Also, look up "neo-colonialism" and similar things. It describes how "imperialism" goes on without actually having to own colonies.

Now for your statement that innovation would be more prevelant within an anarchist or communist society. This is simply incorrect. The soviet union..

You misunderstand. When we refer to anarchist or communist society we refer to a class-less state-less society which the Soviet Union was neither anarchist nor communist (i.e. it's called socialism by some and State Monopoly Capitalism, the state owned everything and those who ran it can benefit greatly as a whole, by others and myself.). Some of us do not aim to put socialism anywhere while others here believe it as prerequisites for communism.

----

I rarely post here so I'll probably wont answer any replies (although someone else might; there are those who like debating in OI alot.), actually I only wanted to post here so to comment on TomK's "You made a couple of good posts" comment.

Bud Struggle

17th April 2008, 21:02

I rarely post here so I'll probably wont answer any replies (although someone else might; there are those who like debating in OI alot.), actually I only wanted to post here so to comment on TomK's "You made a couple of good posts" comment.

Well! Thanks for following my posts. I know I have a nice little following with you Commie Club Crowd.

Thanks for joining my fan club. :thumbup::hammersickle:

Dr Mindbender

17th April 2008, 21:11

First of all i believe that the driving force of invention is greed.
So are you suggesting that before capitalism there was no inventors?

If you read Marx he states that ''capitalism has taken all manner of noble professions and turned them into submissive, obedient wage slaves''.This applies to all manner of skilled professions, including inventors.

So to say that invention and capitalim are entwined is a nonsense.

Yes many inventors would have you beleive otherwise and would likely be offended by what i am implying yet if you look at many great inventors and scientist greed was undeniably part of their motive. Newton tried his hand at alchemy, if this isnt greed i dont know what is.
Possibly because he was desperate to raise his funds due to the material conditions of the day?

The industrial revolution, the greatest economic and scientific revolution that has arguably ever occurred, was driven by capitalism.
The contribution by the beourgiose class however, was arbitrary. It was the labour of the proletarian class that was the real driving force behind it. The industrial revolution did not necessitate an idle beourgiose.

Looking further back to scientists and inventors like archimedes i beleive would be pointless as the situation of these people us relatively unknown to us.
Thats a bit of a cop out, isnt it?

Thirdly id like to attack the idea that everyday anarchy put forward about capitalism aggravating poverty of the thirdworld. I would argue that it more the fault of history than economy that aggravates poverty in the third world. it was the imperialism and colonisation of Africa which has left it in such a poor state. If these countries were not invaded they may have developed to such an extent that they were able to trade on a level footing.
Yes, but those imperialist nations that led the colonisation did so to further and sustain their own capitalistic ambitions. If they stayed at home all of the materials needed in their own homelands due to overproduction would have run out.
They had to go overseas to suck the resources from those lands.

I do not beleive anarchy or communism could sort this matter out. Because it is too late. Yes we can do our best to help these countries but the "playing surface" so to speak is too tipped in the wests favour. Technilogically, economically and educationally we are far to advanced that i beleive it will be hundreds of years of a nuclear war before Africa has caught up with the west.
...or 10 years of global communism?

Next id like to attack another one of everyday anarchy's ideas (sorry bout this but i feel i have to defend myself, specially after you said they should restrict me! god i was only putting forward ideas). You seemed to have missed the point entirely with my statement of the stability of England when compared to other countries. You have to look at the longjevity of the reign of these to countries. Communism in the USSR did not last as long as capitalism and democracy have in England, not only stability of the USSR was only enforced by purges and terror.
The USSR under it's existing conditions is a bad analogy. It had it's material conditions forced upon it through the actions of foreign military and economic aggressors as someone else rightly pointed out.

Now for your statement that innovation would be more prevelant within an anarchist or communist society. This is simply incorrect. The soviet union was not exactly known for inventing ground breaking products. Again, see above. Capitalism had a head start of what, 200, maybe 300 years? By that time it had built up a military that could act as a noose around the neck of any worker's uprising. The british empire was already rampaging around asia and africa before karl marx was able to finish the manifesto.

Its hardly surprising capitalism was able to suppress it.

id i
nvent, like the nuclear bomb, were not exactly advantagous for the rest of the world. Then theres cuba, i cant think of many great cuban scientists or great cuban inventors. Yes china is good at mass production but is not exactly known for its innovative inventors. Japan is known for this, but is capitalist. England is known for this, but is capitalist. The USA and Europe are both known for this but are capitalist. To suggest otherwise would to be ignoring the evidence.

Yes but the luxuries within those capitalist nations are by in large playthings of their own local ruling classes. It comes back to the arbitrary role played by the beourgiose. The ruling class do not provide any of the theory, intellect creativity or scientific savvy behind the inventions that we take from granted. They come primarilly from the engineers and scientists who are as a rule of thumb, fellow members of the proletarian class.

Yes imperialism is destructive but i do not see it as a neccessity of capitalism. The do not HAVE to go hand in hand, only if your a neo-con do they go hand in hand.
It is also a necessity of neo-liberalism. Whenever the free market is allowed to run rampant, it is able to enslave people of other nations. Look at the behaviour of multinational sportswear companies who build sweatshops across asia. This is an example of privatised imperialism.

Now i want to tackle the general concencus that England was only powerful because of its military, imperialist power. This is, at its heart, incorrect.
Actually, it was arguably down to the enslavement of the celtic people. The English alone did not have the gumption, strength or savvy to engage in it's worldwide crusade before it consumed the Scottish and Irish warriors and Welsh farming people.

The military power resulted from the innovation that occurred during the industrial revolution, innovation that would not have been possible without capitalism. No this does not mean capitalism caused war, it means that for a state to trully advance it is required to be capitalist.
See above.

mykittyhasaboner

17th April 2008, 21:21

Communism in the USSR did not last as long as capitalism and democracy have in England, not only stability of the USSR was only enforced by purges and terror. Secondly, anyone who considers Nazi Germany to be stable is foolish. Yes it was powerful but you cannot mistake power for stability. Under Adolf Hitler it laster just under a decade. Not particuarly long i think you will agree.
Communism did not exist in the USSR, and democracy does not exist in England (if you are referring to elected officials, and parliament, then your perception of democracy is horribly skewed)

Ok now Mykittyhasabonor (good name by the way) disagree with your first criticism entirely. The difference between something being a lifes aim and it being a freedom is fairly blurred in this situation. I beleive you are incorrect becuase one has to choice to make the gathering of money (for want of a better phrase) their lifes priority or they can have it as a neccessity with which they are abled to attain freedom.
living in a capitalist society, you HAVE to make money, to eat, to drink, to have a home, to have health care, for everything! how can you call this a choice? secondly, money does not grant you freedom, only oppression.

Now for your statement that innovation would be more prevelant within an anarchist or communist society. This is simply incorrect. The soviet union was not exactly known for inventing ground breaking products. The ones it did invent, like the nuclear bomb, were not exactly advantagous for the rest of the world. Then theres cuba, i cant think of many great cuban scientists or great cuban inventors. Yes china is good at mass production but is not exactly known for its innovative inventors. Japan is known for this, but is capitalist. England is known for this, but is capitalist. The USA and Europe are both known for this but are capitalist. To suggest otherwise would to be ignoring the evidence.
Umm, yeah have you ever heard of the Soviet Space program!? their program is famous for the first: satelite, human in space, rover on the moon(before the us even thought of a rover), space station, and rendezvous in space.....yeah and the nuclear bomb was not invented in the soviet union, only the largest(so far as we know). Cuba is state capitalist. not communist. Can you give any evidence that Japan and England are so "technologically progressive" because of capitalism?

Yes imperialism is destructive but i do not see it as a neccessity of capitalism. The do not HAVE to go hand in hand, only if your a neo-con do they go hand in hand.
No, capitalism and imperialism DO go hand in hand, since they are both driven by the same things: greed, power, money, control, authority.

No this does not mean capitalism caused war, it means that for a state to trully advance it is required to be capitalist.
This is just absurd, advancement can be driven by cooperation, mutual and communal well being, and overall prosperity for humanity.(not just greed)

17th April 2008, 21:38

Thirdly id like to attack the idea that everyday anarchy put forward about capitalism aggravating poverty of the thirdworld. I would argue that it more the fault of history than economy that aggravates poverty in the third world. it was the imperialism and colonisation of Africa which has left it in such a poor state. If these countries were not invaded they may have developed to such an extent that they were able to trade on a level footing.

You're of course ignoring the obvious connection that these countries were colonized because of "greed" and capitalism. Do you think Leopold purchased the Congo as a vacation home?

You have to look at the longjevity of the reign of these to countries. Communism in the USSR did not last as long as capitalism and democracy have in England, not only stability of the USSR was only enforced by purges and terror.

Such a simplistic analysis isn't even worthy of a response.

The ones it did invent, like the nuclear bomb

I sincerely hope you're not being serious here.

Yes imperialism is destructive but i do not see it as a neccessity of capitalism. The do not HAVE to go hand in hand, only if your a neo-con do they go hand in hand.

This is because you have no idea what capitalism is or how it operates.

Kronos

17th April 2008, 22:37

the rest of the Forum is just about never ending postulations on the never read third book of Das Kapital. Someday someone will actually be brave enough to actually read all that dull stuff, but for now they can only guess (and then pontificate--at length) on what it says.There could be fifteen volumes of Das Kapital and Marx would still be correct. A critical analysis of economics is always subject to changes, because material relations change. History is an improvisation. Marx knew this. Your buddy Adam Smith, on the other hand, had no idea what would become of capitalism when he thought up the monster. Indeed, capitalism was a revolutionary step from feudalism....but only one step, and a step the world has stalled on. The principles of capitalism contain the seeds of its own destruction. It simply cannot persist much longer- it is inherently and structurally impossible for a long term economics system. Look around. 9 trillion dollar debt, hyper inflation, recession, imperialist wars in the name of "democracy" and "the fight on terror", on and on.

This planet will either reach a totalitarian state of big-brotherhood, in which you will certainly not be the big brother, I can assure you, or, the bourgeois will be overthrown, society revolutionized, space colonized, and we live happily ever after and spread throughout the entire universe. The spirit of Mao twinkling above us as we twinkle below.

Believe me when I tell you that capitalism will be a dinosaur one day, something read about in history books while the teacher addresses the class: "and that guy, class, was what we call a capitalist. He can be likened to a parasite, which means that he did absolutely nothing but get in the way."

Comrades, all your responses were very informative and well placed. Smoke em if you got em.

luxemburg89

17th April 2008, 22:45

2. Many of the price rises are caused by capitalism. This is just not true, they are caused by poor crop harvests and natural disasters.
3. Much of the worlds poverty is caused by the capitalist nature of the richest countries. Once again i beleive this to be incorrect. The poverty of these countries is because of other geographical and technological factors. Such as a countries natural resources.

Well i hope you enjoyed my opinions.

I did, I thought they were fucking hilarious. I'm not going to be nice to you because you're a moron, and I don't care if you're young - this can be a learning curve for you.

2. The need for there to be good crop harvests comes directly out of Capitalism. The people harvesting the crops are dependent on the crops yielding well, if they don't then they suffer poverty because other people who, by the sheer luck of nature, do well receive the money. It comes down to competition and luck, as is always the case in the Capitalist world, is the deciding factor. If crop harvesting was not for profit and competition then the fact there are good crop harvests, or other industries that do well, would generate enough food etc to compensate for the bad ones - in a collectivist sense. But no, ignore me, Capitalism is all good and fine and dandy, huzzah for Reagan, LOADSA MONEY, and all that bollocks.

3. You are suggesting that it is not Capitalism's fault that those who are born with an advantage due to the sheer luck of being born in an MEDC? I think that Capitalism's terrible nature is demonstrated here, that wealth is determined by place of birth. It should not matter where you are born, you should get exactly what people in rich countries get. In other words a counTRY'S natural resources should be used to help parts of the world that do not have such resources, not used to enhance their poverty. Capitalism is not to blame for the fact some people are born in less developed countries, it is the fault of Capitalism that those countries are less developed.

Thank you and fuck off.

Bud Struggle

17th April 2008, 22:48

There could be fifteen volumes of Das Kapital and Marx would still be correct. A critical analysis of economics is always subject to changes, because material relations change. History is an improvisation. Marx knew this.

Obviously Volume III speaks to the over throw of Communism in Russia and the Capitalization of China. I guess it is a "must read."

The principles of capitalism contain the seeds of its own destruction. It simply cannot persist much longer- it is inherently and structurally impossible for a long term economics system.

Unlike the "long term" Soviet Union? :lol:

Look around. 9 trillion dollar debt, hyper inflation, recession, imperialist wars in the name of "democracy" and "the fight on terror", on and on.

That's just business as usual.

This planet will either reach a totalitarian state of big-brotherhood, in which you will certainly not be the big brother, I can assure you, or, the bourgeois will be overthrown, society revolutionized, space colonized, and we live happily ever after and spread throughout the entire universe. The spirit of Mao twinkling above us as we twinkle below.

I agree, but you forgot to mention the "Mothership." We have to go to the "Mothership."

Believe me when I tell you that capitalism will be a dinosaur one day, something read about in history books while the teacher addresses the class: "and that guy, class, was what we call a capitalist. He can be likened to a parasite, which means that he did absolutely nothing but get in the way."

And make it all happen.

Comrades, all your responses were very informative and well placed. Smoke em if you got em.

Indeed.

Kronos

17th April 2008, 23:35

and the Capitalization of China.

I'll tell you a secret. China is fighting fire with fire. I can tell you no more at this time.

Unlike the "long term" Soviet Union?

My usual response to such remarks made by capitalists who just love to point out the failed communisms throughout history is simple: communism must be global in order to work. Communist countries are forced to utilize capitalist elements in order to remain competitive. This is what happened to both Russia and China. If the iron curtain did not fall, Russia would not have developed into the superpower it is now. An isolated communist country will wither away without participating the a global capitalist economy.

That's just business as usual.

No kidding.

I agree, but you forgot to mention the "Mothership." We have to go to the "Mothership."

Sure, sure...laugh it up. Do not mistake me for the guy who wears a tin-foil hat. What I speak of is not only possible, but absolutely necessary for the human species to survive. What do you propose as an alternative? Stay here on earth and breath bottled oxygen after we overwhelm the atmosphere with pollution? Do we.....wait until that meteor finally comes and hold hands while singing "all you need is love"? If that is your idea of a good time, I can't help you. My comrades and I got plans for the moon. We have no time for nihilists.

And make it all happen.

Tell me what a capitalist does in the chain of production. I know. Do you?

Bud Struggle

17th April 2008, 23:55

I'll tell you a secret. China is fighting fire with fire. I can tell you no more at this time.

If Communism WORKED it wouldn't have to stoop to such levels.

My usual response to such remarks made by capitalists who just love to point out the failed communisms throughout history is simple: communism must be global in order to work.

I hope you Communists have a Plan "B".

Communist countries are forced to utilize capitalist elements in order to remain competitive.

Bingo!!!!

This is what happened to both Russia and China. If the iron curtain did not fall, Russia would not have developed into the superpower it is now. An isolated communist country will wither away without participating the a global capitalist economy.

So Communism withers away because someone says, "Boo!"

Sure, sure...laugh it up. Do not mistake me for the guy who wears a tin-foil hat. What I speak of is not only possible, but absolutely necessary for the human species to survive. What do you propose as an alternative? Stay here on earth and breath bottled oxygen after we overwhelm the atmosphere with pollution? Do we.....wait until that meteor finally comes and hold hands while singing "all you need is love"? If that is your idea of a good time, I can't help you. My comrades and I got plans for the moon. We have no time for nihilists.

You would have think I scriped this guy. :D

Tell me what a capitalist does in the chain of production. I know. Do you?

We INVENT the chain of production.

Kronos

18th April 2008, 00:04

Bud Struggle

18th April 2008, 00:17

Alright well I'm gonna have to sit this one out, Tommy. There are cases where a capitalist knows so little about capitalism that it is futile to even discuss it with him.

Good luck.

I'll see you on the front.

Fair enough. See you on the front. All the best to you, too.

Nice meeting you, though. Till we meet again. :D

Tom

luxemburg89

18th April 2008, 02:18

Unlike the "long term" Soviet Union?

How many times does it have to be said before you morons get this inside your thick skulls. The USSR was Socialist only in name. What really occured was State Capitalism. And the reactionary bollocks starts up again....

Schrödinger's Cat

18th April 2008, 08:24

I want to question the radical left wing's innate belief that capitalism is trully evil,

Leftists tend to avoid moral dichotomies. Good and bad should be substituted for regressive and progressive. Marxists in particular base their ideology off of material substance. Whatever satisfies the most wants for most people can be classified as progressive.

isnt there freedom within the idea of being able to make money

We don't stand in opposition to people making money through talents and productive enterprenuership - although we eventually wish to utilize productive forces to render the price system obsolete.

the massess are wealthier than they have ever been before

Most slaves lived better in North America under a system of chattel slavery than European aristocrats (lesser-lords) did only 600 years ago. We don't believe capitalism should be avoided. Marx saw all modes of production as progressive in one time or another.

as long as one is willing, social mobility is alive and kicking.

That is a lie.

The working class (which constitutes the "poor" and "middle" classes in contemporary politics) rarely moves up in society. I've quoted this statistic numerous times, but I always find it entertaining. Children born to low-income parents have less than a 1% chance at being in the top 5% at the peak of their career. Likewise, someone born to medium-income parents only has about a 1.8% chance. If this is considered social mobility, I'm a freight train. People born to parents in the top 5% have a 22% chance of staying there, with about double that likelihood (57%) of remaining in the top 6-10%.

Also keep in mind that when we harp on the "rich" we're more or less talking about capitalists. Petty millionaires do not own a sizable portion of the means of production to have much say in the productive forces.

First of all i dont beleive it can be denied that communism, anarchism and all they other left wing ideologies/economic systems (if they could be called that) completely stifle creativity, invention and individuality.

On the contrary, Leftist economic modes of production encourage all three. I'm sure you've come across the phrase "internet piracy is like downloading communism." There's a reason such wording has been used for internet activities. It represents exactly how communism would operate. Whereas under capitalism any sensible person would favor patents and copyrights (I've worked in the publishing industry and I can tell you authors would fail without legal protection - I've ran into problems myself), under communism all medical, technical, written, and drawn information would be freely available.

Without capitalism and the objective of wealth hugely important "products" would not have been made. Things like the steam engine were only developed with retailing and profit in mind.

I don't think you realize Leftists look at history progressively.

Do you think that stevenson would of created his rocket if he had no money and there was no money available to him.

If you live under a system that necessitates profit motive, it would be stupid not to pursue that route. A better question should be: do you think Stevenson would have pursued his rocket invention if money didn't exist? In which case I answer yes - fame and peer review play an important role in social standing. Accordingly, under socialism new inventions would be rewarded with money. We're not looking to equalize pay.

Cuba is a fairly good example. Its economy is in turmoil, with wages actually falling.

Actually, you're wrong. Cuba's economy sustained a dramatic hit when the Soviet Union collapsed, but it's economy is in no way worse than most of Latin America. Indeed its social services and food distribution methods are stellar in comparison.

The stability of capitalism is also a large factor in my belief in its effectivness. Yes England has had tough times economically. Yet England has never been anything but a world power since the napoleonic era

"Long-standing" capitalist nations grew on the back of cheap labor, either through slavery (Americans) or colonial conquests.

Not revolutionary state has ever suggested to me that it is entirely stable.

No revolutionary state qualified for a transition into socialism. Cuba, China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam - all had barely emerged from feudalism. Capitalism was, at the time, a progressive force for all the countries - provided that the capitalism was internalized (which wouldn't have been the case for Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba).

I also want to bring up the point that France staggered through the 19th century with its liberal experiments - as you talked about later on. Through the 19th and early 20th century it was suggested that democratic republics would fail. Indeed from the 1920s to the mid-1940s much of the globe was turning towards either militarism or a shade of fascism.

2. Many of the price rises are caused by capitalism. This is just not true, they are caused by poor crop harvests and natural disasters.

Most agrarian experts (and indeed the UN itself) believe we had the capability to feed 12 billion people until they took in 3200+ calories in the 1970s. Food prices rise according to natural conditions - yes - but want can still be satisfied. Indeed most foodstuffs could be provided for free if it weren't for the fact we operate on a profit system. It costs more to transport food to people with no/little money than it does to simply not produce the food. Any fluctuation in the weather patterns just cuts off more people.

3. Much of the worlds poverty is caused by the capitalist nature of the richest countries. Once again i beleive this to be incorrect. The poverty of these countries is because of other geographical and technological factors. Such as a countries natural resources.

Empirical evidence says otherwise.

Ask Latin Americans if the United States was a progressive or regressive force on their economies.

Ask Africans and the Chinese if Europeans were a progressive or regressive force on their economies.

Ask Asians if Japan was a progressive or regressive force on their economies.

On the last subject, Japan disproves your third bulletin. Although its maritime food supply does keep for a healthy population, it's without many resources we take for granted. Japan's success depended on opening up trade with the West, and thereupon conquering Asia.

I think geography plays an important role in the speed of progressive, but to deny that capitalism, when exported onto people with no intention of grassroots investments, has kept people poor would be naive.

Bud Struggle

18th April 2008, 17:05

How many times does it have to be said before you morons get this inside your thick skulls. The USSR was Socialist only in name. What really occured was State Capitalism. And the reactionary bollocks starts up again....

I guess that's "science" :cool:

So here: I want to see a Soviet. See it in operation--you know a "workers" conrgess that tells the government about how business should be done.

Where should I go, Cuba? China? Vietnam? I don't know, Korea? Tell me about it an I PROMISE to visit it in the next 6 months and give an HONEST view on what I see.

So, tell me: where can I find a freak'in Marxist "Soviet?"

mikelepore

18th April 2008, 18:54

Definition of a conservative: a person who believes that nothing should be done for the first time.

Schrödinger's Cat

18th April 2008, 21:21

So, tell me: where can I find a freak'in Marxist "Soviet?"

About 20,000 Argentinians took over factory work when that country's economy lagged behind in 2001. It's a case of organic socialism. Deregulation produced 20% unemployment and the top 1% came to inherit 55% of the country's wealth; the population rose up, unseated the president, and converted hundreds of industries into workers' councils. You should compare those firms with the private ones.

I also believe similar cases can be found in Chile, France, Bolivia, Peru, and Germany. Yugoslavia's entire economy was turned into a competitive market of cooperatives - coincidentally the standard of living (both in consumables and necessities) outperformed even some Western powers.

Bud Struggle

18th April 2008, 21:33

Thanks Gene.

There will be a soviet in my Laundry on May 1. I'll let you know how it goes. If they can make more money by better decisions--they can have it.

Maybe even more. I'm still a Capitalist--but I'll share.

Sendo

18th April 2008, 21:51

Wait, there is a very good point here...

Only under capitalism would we have invented and implemented the wonder of over-priced disposable goods and redundant packaging, as well as the wonderfully artitistic and never soul-sucking advertising campaigns to spark everyone's latent desire for wasteful overproduction and consumption.

I'd also posit that daVinci only managed to invent and paint so much because he was a greedy asshole looking for investors at every turn during the heyday of Italian capitalism (the 16th century of course!).

....not

Killfacer

19th April 2008, 15:21

I apologise for the amount of time it has taken me to reply. But im back to defend myself now. Thanks for welcoming me TomK.

Ok well im gonna come clean, i have not read ALL of the posts because im pretty far behind but ill answer some of the problems which i thought were coming out of the debate.

It is true that the imperialism of countries such as Britian may well have been a result of capitalism. First of all i dont not beleive it was a neccessity. Capitalism did not HAVE to become imperialist, it was going along pretty steadily before hand. Secondly todays capitalism (and i dont want to get bogged down in a conversation about the iraq war) does not require true colonisation. I beleive someone referred to it as "neo-colonisation" or "neo-imperialism". These labels are entirely unfair and suggest agression. The influence America has over the world is purely economic and its size and quick industrialisation has alot to do with this. Therefor capitalism does not actually require imperialisation, imperialisation was just a aggressive mistake made by capitalist states.

Next, people seem to get angry at my referal to the USSR and China as communist states. However, these are the only (apart from a couple of short lived south american ones) communist, powerful statees which has experianced at least an attempt at communism. My use of them as examples then, was not because they are perfect examples of communism, but because they are the best example available to anybody.

Then there were some petty replies which were just stupid.

Id also like to reinforce the idea that Britains power was based entirely on economics and capitalism. This cannot be denied. Someone mentioned that the workers were the ones who created the British empire. This may well be true, but who (and im not saying this is morally acceptable) payed the workers? Who designed the things which made Britain great? Personally i think that the Steam engine was one of the most vital inventions. And yes, the steam engine is an entirely commerical entity.

I personally find the idea that a communist state would be innovative laughable. There is no evidence for it apart from some (and this bit is key) COMMUNISTS claiming it to be so. Without evidence.

Dejavu

19th April 2008, 15:37

GeneCosta. Can you source you're information? Thanks.

Kwisatz Haderach

19th April 2008, 20:56

First of all i believe that the driving force of invention is greed. Yes many inventors would have you beleive otherwise and would likely be offended by what i am implying yet if you look at many great inventors and scientist greed was undeniably part of their motive. Newton tried his hand at alchemy, if this isnt greed i dont know what is. The industrial revolution, the greatest economic and scientific revolution that has arguably ever occurred, was driven by capitalism. Looking further back to scientists and inventors like archimedes i beleive would be pointless as the situation of these people us relatively unknown to us.
What do you mean by "greed?" Certainly inventors expect something in exchange for their inventions - they have to make a living, after all. But that doesn't mean that they will stop inventing if they can't get rich; in fact, most inventors are not rich at all. Most inventors are employees in corporate R&D departments, not capitalists.

Next id like to attack another one of everyday anarchy's ideas (sorry bout this but i feel i have to defend myself, specially after you said they should restrict me! god i was only putting forward ideas). You seemed to have missed the point entirely with my statement of the stability of England when compared to other countries. You have to look at the longjevity of the reign of these to countries. Communism in the USSR did not last as long as capitalism and democracy have in England, not only stability of the USSR was only enforced by purges and terror.
First of all the USSR wasn't communist and England isn't democratic.

But more importantly, "stability" is a poor criterion to judge political or economic systems. The most stable societies in human history were hunter-gatherer societies; the most stable political units in history were ancient slave empires like Ancient Egypt or the Roman Empire.

And while the Soviet Union only lasted for 70 years, I'd like to point out that most independent countries in the world today are younger than 70 years.

Finally to every day anarchy i would like to say. Be as rude as you like but dont try and get me restricted (i dont know what it means but it sounds bad). Im simply putting forward my ideas so, under the criticism of people who seem pretty reasonable, i can develop me own ideas. I am actually alot more left wing that this article makes me seem.
Don't worry about that; being restricted just means that you can only post in the OI forum - which is where you're supposed to post anyway if you want to attack communism or socialism from a capitalist standpoint.

Now for your statement that innovation would be more prevelant within an anarchist or communist society. This is simply incorrect. The soviet union was not exactly known for inventing ground breaking products.
Actually, the Soviet Union had the second largest economy in the world at the time of its dissolution, and Soviet economic growth was overall higher between 1929-1980 than American economic growth.

The ones it did invent, like the nuclear bomb, were not exactly advantagous for the rest of the world.
The first (fission) nuclear bomb was invented in the United States, though if I'm not mistaken the Soviets did build the first fusion bomb a few years later.

Then theres cuba, i cant think of many great cuban scientists or great cuban inventors. Yes china is good at mass production but is not exactly known for its innovative inventors. Japan is known for this, but is capitalist. England is known for this, but is capitalist. The USA and Europe are both known for this but are capitalist. To suggest otherwise would to be ignoring the evidence.
How do you measure innovation? Surely not by the number of inventors that you have personally heard about! If you're from an English-speaking country, of course you will hear more about stuff that happens in English-speaking countries (including innovations).

Yes imperialism is destructive but i do not see it as a neccessity of capitalism. The do not HAVE to go hand in hand, only if your a neo-con do they go hand in hand.
Yes, they do go hand in hand. What is the purpose of imperialism? To secure natural resources from other countries (and to create new markets for your products). Why do you need to secure natural resources and create new markets? To drive capitalist expansion. The purpose of imperialism is to fuel capitalism.

And every major capitalist power has always been imperialist or at least tried to become imperialist.

Now i want to tackle the general concencus that England was only powerful because of its military, imperialist power. This is, at its heart, incorrect. The military power resulted from the innovation that occurred during the industrial revolution, innovation that would not have been possible without capitalism. No this does not mean capitalism caused war, it means that for a state to trully advance it is required to be capitalist.
Umm, yeah, in order for a feudal society (like 17th century England) to advance it is required to become capitalist. We all agree with that. And in order for a capitalist society to advance further it is required to become socialist.

I'd also like to point out that you have just explained how imperialism was only made possible by the development of capitalism.

Thanks to you lot, being dismissive. I have been restricted. How to i get unrestricted because i am genuinly an anarchist. Just wanting interesting political discussions.
Well, if you're an anarchist, start by making anarchist arguments in response to capitalist ones posted by other people, and after a while you may be unrestricted.

Kwisatz Haderach

19th April 2008, 21:19

It is true that the imperialism of countries such as Britian may well have been a result of capitalism. First of all i dont not beleive it was a neccessity. Capitalism did not HAVE to become imperialist, it was going along pretty steadily before hand.
Well, imperialism increased the profits of capitalists. Capitalism is all about increasing your profits. Therefore, capitalists will inevitably engage in imperialism.

The only way that capitalism won't lead to imperialism is if capitalists somehow decide to ignore an opportunity to increase their profits. Which does not ever happen.

Secondly todays capitalism (and i dont want to get bogged down in a conversation about the iraq war) does not require true colonisation. I beleive someone referred to it as "neo-colonisation" or "neo-imperialism". These labels are entirely unfair and suggest agression. The influence America has over the world is purely economic and its size and quick industrialisation has alot to do with this. Therefor capitalism does not actually require imperialisation, imperialisation was just a aggressive mistake made by capitalist states.
Imperialism is a fundamentally economic process: The point is to gain control over other countries' natural resources and turn their economies into export markets for your finished products. This may or may not require direct political control over those countries. In the past, direct political control was necessary. Today it isn't necessary any more.

Next, people seem to get angry at my referal to the USSR and China as communist states. However, these are the only (apart from a couple of short lived south american ones) communist, powerful statees which has experianced at least an attempt at communism. My use of them as examples then, was not because they are perfect examples of communism, but because they are the best example available to anybody.
Sure, it's perfectly fair to say that the USSR or China attempted to build communism. But that does not mean that you can argue that all communist societies will inevitably end up like them, any more than you can argue that all capitalist societies will end up like the US and the UK, or Brazil and India, or any other random pair of existing capitalist countries.

Id also like to reinforce the idea that Britains power was based entirely on economics and capitalism. This cannot be denied. Someone mentioned that the workers were the ones who created the British empire. This may well be true, but who (and im not saying this is morally acceptable) payed the workers? Who designed the things which made Britain great? Personally i think that the Steam engine was one of the most vital inventions. And yes, the steam engine is an entirely commerical entity.
It is wrong to speak of "paying" the workers as if someone gave them charity. The workers earned their own money. In fact, they earned far more money than they ever received. Part of the value created by the workers goes back to them in the form of wages, and another part is stolen from them in the form of profits.

And again, no one is denying that capitalism is better than feudalism. Capitalist Britain is better than feudal Britain.

I personally find the idea that a communist state would be innovative laughable. There is no evidence for it apart from some (and this bit is key) COMMUNISTS claiming it to be so. Without evidence.
If you want economic statistics, I've got plenty, and from capitalist sources to boot. For example, from 1928 to 1985, the economy of the Soviet Union grew by a factor of 10, and GNP per capita grew more than fivefold. The Soviet economy started out at roughly 25% the size of the economy of the United States. By 1955, it climbed to 40%. In 1965 the Soviet economy reached 50% of the contemporary US economy, and in 1977 it passed the 60% threshold. Source: Ofer, Gur. ''Soviet Economic Growth: 1928-1985'', RAND/UCLA Center for the Study of Soviet International Behavior, 1988.

Also, in a very real sense, the Soviet Union invented space travel.

Definition of a conservative: a person who believes that nothing should be done for the first time.
Pure genius! That is going in my sig. :)

Schrödinger's Cat

20th April 2008, 01:46

GeneCosta. Can you source you're information? Thanks.

Social mobility:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html
http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=389282
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3518560 (requires registration)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/14/national/class/15MOBILITY-WEB.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Argentina:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30486
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Argentina+%2B+workers%27+councils&btnG=Search

Yugoslavia:
http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C3385.aspx
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/62/022.html

Multiethnic, socialist Yugoslavia was once a regional industrial power and economic success. In the two decades before 1980, annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaged 6.1 percent, medical care was free, the literacy was 91 percent, and life expectancy was 72 years. (World Bank)

World Hunger:
http://www.fao.org/wfd/ambas/aboutProg/aboutFAP_en.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-145836674.html
http://www.foodfirst.org/12myths
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/hung-d19.shtml
http://www.newint.org/issue151/myths.htm
http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm
http://www.stwr.net/content/view/2317/37/

Two corporations--Cargill, the United States' largest privately owned corporation and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)--control 75 percent of the global grain trade. These corporations dominate the agricultural sector of many developing countries. For instance, Nestle controls 80 percent of milk production in Peru. Cargill Paraguay sells more than 30 percent of the total production of soy, wheat, and corn of the country.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) found in a 1997 study that 78% of all malnourished children under five in the developing world live in countries with food surpluses.

Killfacer

20th April 2008, 18:06

First of all:

The statement that all inventors are in corporate R&D department actually is in favour of what i was saying. CORPORATE department. the key word there being CORPORATE.

Id also like to question this hunter gather rubbish. "The most stable societies were hunter gatherers". What you mean like effing cave men? Hardly worthy of the phrase "society". As for your statement about egypt and rome, it is irrevelant to the argument. Both these societies came a hell of a long time before communism/anarchism and therefor the drawing of a comparison is pointless. And i also think that your statement that "stability" is a poor criteria for the judging of a political and economic system is just ridiculous. It is vitaly important as a means of judging a political and economic system.

Next Edric0 you seemed of a got innovation and productivity mixed up. Yes the soviet union was the second largest economy. But there are two problems with this. The first being that productivity and innovation are entirely different entities. The second being the un deniably cruel means which the soviet union used to make this productivity.

Next, nobody measure the innovation of a country by the amount of inventors. This would be ridiculous. I beleive the measure of innovation should be the amount of useful/important inventions creates, particuarly ones which changed the world such as ths team engine.

Next you seem to have misunderstood me. Imperialism is a prerequisit to a succesful capitalist society. Far from it, our society is fine without imperialism.

Next you claime that imperialism is impossible without capitalism. Bollocks. Imperialism has been going on in some form or another for thousands of years.

After this you claime that to advance a capitalist society must become socialist. Once again the evidence is contrary to this, our society has hardly reached a point of stagnation. Thanks to capitalism, science is rocketing forward at speeds that would be impossible without capitalism. Computers, genetics, chips, and hundreds of other creations, vital to the advancement of society, would not be created in a communist state. Nobody has come up with good evidence to say communism and anarchism would create innovation. At best people have put forward poor ideas or just ignored that fact all together.

Next you argue that capitalism inevitably leads to imperialism. Once again yuor incorrect. Countries like the UK no longer barge into countries, rape them of their natural resources and stay there as conquerors (and no iraq war bullshit, i cant be bothered). This undermines your argument entirely. Many countries have realised more profit is available through trade, not through warfair. Economic imperialism, just isnt imperialism. Calling it so is just ridiculous.

Yes, i cannot say all communist countries would end up like this. No one can say for definate. But all the evidence is that they will. ALl the countries that have tried it have failed. This is the only evidence available. Debating a hypothetical country in which communism has succeeded and is perfect is pointless because it is extremely unlikely that this will occur.

Next you once again mixed up my intent. I do not deny that economically communist russia was extremely powerful. But this is an irrelevance. Like i earlier stated, innovation and economic power are entirely different.

and in reply to this hilarious statement:
"Definition of a conservative: a person who believes that nothing should be done for the first time."

Personally i dont think risking thousands of peoples lives for a little test to see if communism works is the brightest idea i have ever heard.

Feslin

20th April 2008, 18:44

I'll tell you a secret. China is fighting fire with fire. I can tell you no more at this time.

Bullshit. China isn't capitalizing out of some master plan to destroy capitalism, it's doing what it needs to do to survive.

Omi

20th April 2008, 21:26

To the contrary of ''internet would never be invented if it weren't for capitalism'', just go and examine how internet works.

Projects like wikipedia, linux, or any other open source computer program is a perfect example of a non-profit though very succesfull working system. Why should profit, just one of the rewards for succes, need to be the only driving force to succes and progression?

If you wish to see how leftist theory is actually practised, go and have a look in one of the many autonomous spaces in europe. (Not saying there aren't any in other continents, I just have no knowledge about them). There are many spaces in which leftist theory is practised, and actually works. It even works so well capitalists try everything they can to ensure they are getting closed.

How can you say that in an ideology which ensures equal welfare and freedom for progression, personal expression, actively fighting any form of opression, and with the most important ideal: happyness for all, is worse than a system which ensures the opposite?

Maybe communism can't work in practice, but how about capitalism in practisce?
Clearly capitalism cannot untill this day take care of famine, pollution, and war.
How can you defend a notice of humankind being greedy, and still keep speaking up for a system which rewards greed with the possibility of even greater greed.

So go and learn from history, we are the future:star: