Capitalism doesn't exploit as such.

[MaxB]

In a mixed-economy:
-You're not forced to buy the products/services of a corporation. You can choose whose company you'll work for. And yes, If I own a company I can charge what ever the fuck I want for it---NOW, I can't force you to buy it. And anybody that has the knowledge and ability can become an entrepenour.
-In the Socialist filth, all is owned by the government, so u can only work and buy from one source. No competition of serveces/prices/products. Pretty much, you're fucked. If you don't kiss Comunista's ass, you're out of luck 'cause you got nowhere else to go. Shit, it was easy for Stalin to kill 40 000 000 people, he owned all the means of productions and distributions. I beleive this is what sack of shit Marxists call "collectivism".

[MaxB]

One more thing to add: I hope those N. Koreans starve.
I'll get a chance to piss on their graves. Why can't Socialism bail out N. Korea----I mean Viet Nam, Russia, China togerther can do something to feed those starving filthy dogs. OH NOOOOOOO, IT HAS TO BE JAPAN AND TH U. S. THAT FEEDS THOSE MOTHER FUCKERS. HAHA, another success for "Socialism"---threatening the U.S. and S. Korea with nukes if the U. S. doesn't negotiate (helps them).

[ComradeJunichi]

Innocent people should die because what the government is doing. Then I am fucking happy all those people in the WTC are fucking dead. Hell, I'm going walk down to Ground Zero and piss on it.

[Goldfinger]

-You're not forced to buy the products/services of a corporation.

You're absolutely right, you can choose to starve to death if you want to. And as we all know, advertising has NO manipulative effect on people what so ever.... :rollseyes:

You can choose whose company you'll work for.

Tell that to PunkRawker.

If I own a company I can charge what ever the fuck I want for it

Good for you.

NOW, I can't force you to buy [the products, I assume?]

No, but I trust you will do your best. The best way to become succesful and powerful in a world like this, is to think cynically, only wating to make money, and not doing the people a favuor. Therefore, it's only logical to assume that the only companies you can choose between will in the end charge as much as they want.

And anybody that has the knowledge and ability can become an entrepenour.

Yeah, I guess that's usually the people who are fascinated by it and will do a good job. Although in a capitalist world, people would propably just do it for the money.

In the Socialist filth

I'm guessing you mean political theory. Go on, please.

all is owned by the government

Oh, you mean stalinism? I guess you ment filth after all. That isn't socialism, you know. It's fascism

so u can only work and buy from one source.

The whole point is for everyone to co-operate, so that everyone split the profits instead of giving it to the owner of the company. And the owner could just as well be that government, and that's just as unfair as capitalism. In other words, stalinism (and some aspects of Leninism) is not socialist.

No competition of serveces/prices/products.

That's right, only the absolute best alternative is available. Getting what you work for, instead of giving it to big and powerful Max.

Pretty much, you're fucked.

Like I said before, there isn't much difference between that the government or large corporations own everything. The biggest companies will all end up uniting and giving the same services. Yes, I agree with you that a system like that means you're fucked.

If you don't kiss Comunista's ass, you're out of luck 'cause you got nowhere else to go.

The "communista" is everyone. It isn't supposed to be the government. Everyone means you too. In other words, you're working for everyone, including yourself. In a capitalist world you have the freedom to choose between a couple of companies, but they're all the same anyway.

Shit, it was easy for Stalin to kill 40 000 000 people, he owned all the means of productions and distributions.

What frightens me now, is that 100 rich white guys own most companies in the world, and therefore means of production.

I beleive this is what sack of shit Marxists call "collectivism".

I guess you believe in santa-claus as well, huh?

[new democracy]

Deserve to die!? i think that MaxB is an example of what capitalism causes. and then you call us anti human. you only care about yourself. about your first post, workers can choose their bosses, but all the bosses pay almost the same wage. one can give a little more or little less, but there is no major difference. and if the workers choose that they will not enrich the boss, they will starve. it is like the bosses come to the worker and say "work for us or you will be shot" only that the bullet is more faster than starvation. about that "economic freedom", starting a business cost money. if i am a worker which is earning low wages, i have to support my family, pay taxes, pay the water bill, electricity bill, rent, fund the education of my children, medical bill, etc, and after i have all those economic worries, how can i start a business when it is so hard to maintain myself and my family?

And maintaining a business is not that easy. a few months ago an old store in my street called "Owl" was sold because the owner got tired from running the store. the person who bought it started there a cafe(which i forgot him name). the cafe failed, and after a short time i saw "sea food" instead. it was soon replaced by something else as well. that place turned into a chameleon business which always replace it's owners and purpose.

[Moskitto]

i think it's stupid to try to argue with someone who believes they know defacto what others believe,

[Sirion]

I finally begin to realise why MaxB haven't posted a single non copy/paste post before now (at leas as far as I've seen).

I leave it up toyou too see what I reall mean with this (trust me, it isnt hard ;) )

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

When does he finaly react on our sensefull notes.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from MaxB on 9:16 pm on Dec. 27, 2002
Shit, it [w]as easy for Stalin to kill 40 000 000 people...

LOL...now that's just silly. 40 million?? I'd put it at somewhere around 10 million maximum, most likely 6 or 7 million. 40 million's closer to the amount killed by Third World debt...

[ComradeJunichi]

40 million was the amount of casualties in World War II.

[CommunismRATM]

Capitalism doesnt exploit ??? Are you joking ??? Look how many little kids are being exploited around the world by corporate clothing companies.

[Rob]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 12:03 am on Dec. 28, 2002

Quote: from MaxB on 9:16 pm on Dec. 27, 2002
Shit, it [w]as easy for Stalin to kill 40 000 000 people...

LOL...now that's just silly. 40 million?? I'd put it at somewhere around 10 million maximum, most likely 6 or 7 million. 40 million's closer to the amount killed by Third World debt...


I actually believe that the most widely accepted is somewhere around 20 million. And anyway, all of the "information" posted by Max does nothing to prove this topic's title: Capitalism doesn't exploit as such. That being said, I shall use the rest of this post to prove that capitalism is indeed an exploitative economic system. Capitalism allows a minority of the population to use the work of the majority to grow wealthy. The majority of people on this planet are engaged in the production or distribution of goods. However, the opulent owning minority use this work, accomplished by other people, to grow wealthy.

[ComradeJunichi]

20 million were the amount of Russian casualties during World War II.

[Rob]

Quote: from ComradeJunichi on 3:01 am on Dec. 28, 2002
20 million were the amount of Russian casualties during World War II.
I'm also pretty sure that 20 million total died from purges, famine (that could've been avoided), or in the gulags during the thirties under Stalin.

[Pete]

"I'm going walk down to Ground Zero and piss on it. "

Tell me about a week and a half before and I'll join along with some fellow comrades from my town:)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

MaxB, you are clearly reffering to a very libertarian form of Capitalism, one close to, if not Anarcho-Capitalism. Example:U$A

You might say "Well, aren't all capitalist systems libertarian?" No, look at Pinochet's Chile, not very libertarian, eh?

BTW, I use the word libertarian meaning the opposite of authoritarian, not the political party, which happens to be somewhat Anarcho-Capitalistic.

[Socialist Pig]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 6:07 am on Dec. 28, 2002
MaxB, you are clearly reffering to a very libertarian form of Capitalism, one close to, if not Anarcho-Capitalism. Example:U$A

I wouldn't call the US a libertarian society.

(Edited by Socialist Pig at 9:27 am on Dec. 28, 2002)