ATTN: anyone who sitll thinks capitalism=individualism

[Guest]

i just stumbled across this board and encountered the same bullshit justification for capitalism i always do. caring for the poor is theft from those who earn their cash, it's all about economic freedom, etc. as far as anyone who thinks it's wrong to use tax dollars to help the poor is concerned, why don't you look through the fortune magazine's 500? i know "free-market" worshippers like to think that their buseiness-men are rugged individualists or whatever, but the fact is that most of our tax dollars are NOT going to health care or welfare services, in fact america has among the WORST of both among the industrialized countries. they are going towards tax returns and subsidies to our giant corporations so they can avoid the risks of the "free-market" that they impose on the poor. what capitalism means is NOT free-markets, it's socialism for the rich and free markets for the rest of us. if we had a real capitalism as libertarians and free-market idealists worship, we would have a dog-eat-dog economy that would collapse because all the corporations we depend upon would be overcome by market risks and wouldnt have the government looking out for them. the free market is a myth. we are not rich off our ass due to free markets, we're rich off our ass due to pimping out tyrannies in the third world who will support our interests, some of which were better before we came about. example: afghanistan. that country had a pretty decent government before we fucked with em. it was too egalitarian and reeked of communism so we had to intervene. afghanistan became a cold war battlefield and we pumped money into the mujahideen which later became the taliban, so we could have access to the unical oil pipeline in their. we fucked their people over in the name of "free markets" and believe it or not, we had NO problem with the taliban until after 9-11. reagan in fact, referred to them as "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers". so anyone who thinks we supprt democracy in the third world or freedom and are trying to stop evil commie dictators is...at risk of sounding clice...believing what they've been told. and our capitalist economy doesn't depend on the hard work of rugged individualists like henry ford, in fact, capitalist entrepeneurs are just as dependent on the government as welfare mothers. we provide tax cuts and subsidies for the rich so we can put more money into our already bloated economy, so we can get richer. we are NOT going through recessions, corporate executives are richer than ever, yet they continue to slash wages, move factories overseas to exploit third-world sweatshops(in effect laying off many currently employed domestic workers), avoiding environmental restraints, refuse health care for their employees, ALL IN THE NAME OF FREE MARKETS. and anybody who suggests redistribution of who the benefits go to is slandered as a "commie". great...slamming people ho work for social justice as commies and blaming welfare mothers and immigrants for your situation...it's a perfect tool. it keeps the poor pointing fingers at each other so they don't ever see who's really fucking them in the ass. hitler did the same thing by blaming jews and gypsies and a lack of arian pride for their problems. susbstitue "aryan nation" with "family values" and you have a watere-down version of fascism in republicans.


speaking of fascism, to anyone who claims that fascism is more closely related to socialism than capitalism. mussolini was a socialist until he realized that he could get more power by employing his blackshirt squad under corporations to bust up strikes and beat the shit out of commies and whatnot. eventually he gaine state poewr in italy, hitler did much the same. whatever they had in common with socialism was a wolf in sheep's clothing. it'd be like buchanan running for green party. does it make him green party or is he just trying to coerce the green party into following him? it is true that similar to socialist dicatorships, fascists had complete control of the economy, but unlike socialist revolutionaries, fascist "revolutionaries" used their state power over the economy to provide tax cuts and subsidies for the rich and bust up strikebreakers. and it helped the economy tremendously in both italy and germany. it taught the poor to leave their probems to the fuhrer or il duce to solve them, if they were poor, it was their place in life, not to complain, and if shit got rough, blame the jews who migrated into their country. same tactics. it was against american "free markets" because it was under strict control, but unlike communism, rather than provide egalitarianism, they provided for the rich to get richer while keeping the rest in line. it helped the economy, people loved him, but at what cost? we all know the answer to that. keep in mind that hitler, mussolini, and SS troops and other fascist leaders profitted tremendously from their economy as well. that's just proof that improving the economy doesn't always mean improving peoples' lives, and that fascists did NOTHING to promote real social revolution, putting power into the hands of the people. rather, it made the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, while virulently condemning strikes and protests, and moreover coercing people into being silent by thinking that hte problems were because of immigrants(jews in germany, mexicans in america), communists, homosexuals, lack of patriarchal values, and so on and so forth. that allowed the fascist regime to prosper. what does that sound more like, socialism or the american republican party? i think the only real similarity is that most of the famous socialist governments were totalitarian just like hitler, but that's not economic, that's governmental. the fact is, hitler's totalitarianism PROMOTED the upper-class and told people NOT to wish for egalitarianism. also keep in mind that during the flowering of fascist italy and germany, fortune magazine, the washington post, and the wall street journal all PRAISED mussolini and hitler, one journal even said "we could use a leader like mussolini in our country".

okay, i'm totally rambling and am probably not coherent, but i just wanted to say that NO capitalist entrepeneur wants free markets, they want the government to protect THEM from market risks rather than the poor, no welfare mother or socialist activist wants society to provide for them rather than work on their own, they just want the government to look after them before the ceo because let's face it, free markets don't exist, they're all carefully regulated by governments, it's just a matter of who they're gonna care about: the people, or the corporations. most socialists as far as i know are just saying "hey, why are you so adamantly against welfare programs and a 'nanny state' for the poeple when you're perfectly willing to do it if it means making the rich richer? why are people so opposed to their tax dollars helping some immigrant they don't give a shit about when they turn a blind eye to their tax dollars going to a corporation that they might not care about?"

free markets are a myth, capitalism depends on the government looking out for them while making sure the poor stay there ready for exploitation(read the jungle...capitalism depends on most of the world staying like that, waiting for the "trickle-down" theory to solve their conditions....not knowing if you're gonna have a job tomorrow or knowing that if you go on strike, permanent temp workers could be hired in your place is great for the economy...is it good for people?...different question, and fascism is the totalitarian extreme of capitalism while communism is the totalitarian extreme of socialism. neither end up very pretty but that's all they have in common. totalitarianism. nough said.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Guest,

You've just re-hashed and re-iterated the same old tired and inherently flawed arguments that have been par for the course among every leftist here for years. You are painting free-market capitalism with your usual broad and negative brush, often confusing economics and political ideology, and beggging for a government handout by proxy in supporting communism as "social justice".

You obviously are not a history buff.

Of course, you conveniently leave out what capitalism has done for the world, and how the USA is the most successful nation in world history in so many areas, and in such a short time.

And, of course, you blame the USA for "exploiting" 3rd world nations, many of which are older than the USA itself and had a much longer time to realize success than the USA did, not to mention being terretorial and oppressive to other nations in their own regions, not the hapless victims you characterize them as.

You also leave out how capitalism and American investment in oversees operations helps boost local economies in other regions to levels not previously seen in said regions.

There are countless other things that you left out in your obviously biased and embittered analysis of the worlds best economic system going, but, again, this is nothing new around here.

Forget also that capitalism has basically yielded every major key invention and innovation that has benfited the entireity of manking in the last 100 years.

Guest, take your class-envy fueled diatribes to some fucking Greenpeace rally, as we have enough of them already here.

Perhaps if you had done a little beter in life you would appreciate that you only get out what you put in.

Or are you actually just some liberal snot-nose still living at home with mom and pop? Its easy to play armchair
revolutionary when you don't pay your own bills, isn't it?

Be honest.

[honest intellectual]

Capitalism = Individuality only if you deefinge yourself in terms of what you own

[Guest]

yeah, your best point was about capitalism and technological progression. but you know what? why don't you also bring up the fact that companies like general motors have been consistently buying up plans for electric, solar, and other forms of energy-powered cars and just shelving them. in short, capitalism there has been hindering a social progress that could put an end to much of the environmental and war problems that the US is facing. capitalism, like communism, depends on the benevolent nature of mankind, which we must accept it, just does not exist. when it's more profitable for a company to hold out on information and technological progress, they will indeed do so.

"And, of course, you blame the USA for "exploiting" 3rd world nations, many of which are older than the USA itself and had a much longer time to realize success than the USA did, not to mention being terretorial and oppressive to other nations in their own regions, not the hapless victims you characterize them as."

again, you present a point, but i didn't say the third world are all hapless victims. many nations in the third world are run by tyrannical, evil, dictators that i in no way condone. but the fact of the matter is, we fucking support those dictators when profitable. also keep in mind that their have been legitimate governments in the third world. when profitable, the US has proven perfectly willing to destroy those. research the school of the americas or the iran-contra scandal, or the fact that we armed saddam hussein, bin laden, and other "unsavory" characters in the middle east to show how the united states sponsors terrorism abroad. we have also been condemned by the world court for terrorism in nicaragua. i i no way doubt that their are instances where we have indeed helped other nations progress. we aren't pure evil. but the fact of the amtter is our actions are driven by profit, not concern for humanity. if we want to wage war on terrorism, we should account for the fact that according to international law we are terrorists.

point 1: many countries do prosper from capitalism but again, even in america, there are places where people are living in third world conditions and it's NOT THEIR FAULT. and personally, i would rather see my tax dollars going ot that than to bullshit oil wars with dictators who wouldn't exist without us.

point 2: capitalism prospers on the backs of the unprosperous. in the industrial revolution, capitalism prosperred by knowing that should their workers unionize or strike, they could hire replacement workers in a snap...they depended on unemployment to keep their system in line. i am in no way doubting the legitimacy of capitalism as being prosperous, i am doubting it's legitimacy to sustain the human race and the planet. the more antions compete for resources, the more nations will fight each other, the less resources the planet will have, we'l eventually run ourselves to the ground. our prosperity in capitalism depends 100% on others not being so lucky.

point 3: you can talk about it being easy to play "armchair revolutionary" but it's also easy for someone like you to love america when your family wasn't killed by US cruise missiles, or by a dictatorial regime the US set up, or by US-sponsored terrorism in the name of "securing our national interests"(no, im NOT just being anti-american or biased, i know the us isn't the root of all evil, just proving a point. the us is the root of SOME....too much, in my opinion, evil around the world)

point 4: use examples rather than condescending somebody if you want to be taken seriously. you seem like a smart guy. i don't doubt you have them.

point 5: if you want to be taken seriously, don't cite ronald reagan as a wise speaker of proverbs

[Guest]

well this is another guy.

Mr. capitalist imperialist, i find it amusing that the first thing you do is make harsh character generalizations toward guest1. All you spew is propaganda, stigmatizing the opposition and poisoning the well for any further ideas.

How does one measure success? the highest mean GNP? yes i will give you that. But many countries in Europe have a substantially higher median income than that in the US, and any 9th grade math student will tell you median is a much better measure of central tendency. And among a recent survey (i can dig it up if necessary) the US was voted to be the 17th most free nation in the world. Many European countries, including Sweden, Finland, Iceland and others also have a higher median income. Out of the world's top 100 economies, 51 are countries, most if not all based in the US. That may tip the scales, but does not dismiss poverty, drug addiction (an entirely different discussion), class inequality bla bla bla. the US is not the "best" country in the world, even though any of us would like to think so. I have met Europeans who come here and laugh. They laugh at the fact that America is not richer or more free than many places, even though it is portrated as such (might I add by a bunch of rich conservative media owners. Rupert murdoch ring a bell?)

And how many inventions do we really need? Is your life any better because you have a palm pilot? GNP and patents and average(mean) standard of living are incorporeal measurements. Technology can't make anyone's live's better. In modern day life do people really need one more useless thing to worry about? Aren't cell phones and pagers and 600 cable tv channels enough?

Now is it time for me to make unfair generalizations about you and your ideas, so that no one will believe anything you have to say?

guest #2 (the other crazy leftist bastard)

[fettered]

Guest 1 made you make a good point about how corporations depend on the government to sustain them. Free markets in a pure form do not reall exist. The problem is with the bottem line. What is so bad about how corporations work? You say they exploit ppl in other countires,,, well nobody is forcing these people to take these jobs. Why do they take them? Because its better then the alternative, no job or one that pays less or is less desirable.

As for American imperialism... cm on. you want to talk about imperialists talk about the europeans and their ACTUAL imperialism. Where are the american colonies we hold? What territory are we trying to add to the United States. Face the facts, the US is the only country in the world that had sooo much military power but was content to protect its borders and not try and govern the entire world.

If France were as powerful as the US you don't think they'd try and abuse it? Or sudan, or china? The US has shown so much restraint it should be commended not scorned.

You might say we are culturally imperialist but I ask you this. When we liberated afghanistan what came out of the woodwork? radios, tv's, you name it they had it. These people liked American stuff because it was better then what they had. Nobody forced them to get those things, in fact ppl were trying to force them not to.

Calling America imperialist doesn't make any sense.

[Guest]

hahahahaa, RESTRAINT?!

tell that to the thousands we slaughtered in nicaragua and east timor. we imperialize through subtler means. we allow many countries sovereignty but in actuality they are completely dependent on us, and should they disobey us, history's shown that htey pay the price. usually not through direct work of course because we like to keep the image of a civilized society, so we just pay militant death squads that are already there.

as far as afghanistan goes, i think i already mentioned it. we fucking made the taliban. so if we gave them anything, it should have and would have been theirs anyway. we did nothing to help them. all we did was overthrow the taliban which shoudln't have existed in the first place, at the cost of thousands of afghan civilians' lives.

[Guest]

oh, and as far as your analysis of third world labor for our products goes, a lot of the reasons children are employed and they are the sole breadwinners of the house are because their parents were laid off because children proved more exploitable. they're easier to beat, less inclined to fight back, easier to brainwash, and their parents will force them to work because they'll starve otherwise. these cases are all too prevalent, too. don't say it's a worst-case scenario. many corporations have been called on their shit by human rights organizations. kathy lee gifford, nike, and disney all denied the shit out of their involvement, but the evidence was against em. and their is still, in my opinion, no justification for paying the fifty cents a day because we can, or "they need jobs, too, and in their society, the don't spend as much". if we truly cared about humanity, we would do what we could, not the bare minimum. it's not like our companies don't have enough money, for christ's sake.