Yeah that's a line of argument I commonly use. "Most of the world is capitalist, and most of the world is poor".
Results 1 to 20 of 92
Capitalism Doesn't Work
Michael Parenti here argues simply that in a global capitalist system more than half the world's population subsists on less than $2 a day. Surely this is evidence that capitalism doesn't work for the majority of us working class people. Would you argue along these lines?
Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei
[FONT=Tahoma]
[/FONT]
Yeah that's a line of argument I commonly use. "Most of the world is capitalist, and most of the world is poor".
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
Most people in a hospital are sick. Doesn't mean hospitals are institutions to avoid when sick.
Baseball thats a terrible terrible terrible analogy, people ONLY go to hospitals when they are sick, everyone lives in Capitalism, also more people sick in hispitals get out better than those who do not, the vast vast majority of people in Capitalism are failed by it.
I don't know how you could make an argument like that and not be embarrased.
You should avoid hospital when sick, unless you need treatment or else risk infecting people with compromised immune systems.
The analogy was more along the lines of saying because people in a hospital are sick, therefore being in a hospital is what caused them to be sick.
I understand that, but thats a shitty analogy, and it was explained why it was.
I think capitalism works perfectly as it is intended to work. It financially enslaves the working class while consolidating the capitalist's power. That's how it is intended to work. Capitalism as a system aims to benefit the capitalists, not the working classes.
sing me to sleep then leave me alone
Thanks you for this. I get sick of people saying capitalism doesn't work, because they approach it from a moral standpoint instead of looking at the issue from a materialist viewpoint. We wouldn't have capitalism if it didn't work for someone, now would we?
So yes, capitalism does work. The question then isn't whether it works, but who it works for.
YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS
But it doesn't work perfectly anymore, not even for the bourgeoisie. Capitalism as a global system is rotten to its very core. It's why we see so much talk of bubbles and fictitious capital and whatnot these days, because these are sort of temporary fixes to keep the system going, artificially. I like to think of credit and such as steroids and hormones that an aged bodybuilder uses to keep himself going, even though he knows his time has passed long ago.
Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew
How do you reconcile with the fact millions more people are pulled out of poverty every year? How do you explain the fact that basic necessities are cheaper now than any point in history? How do you explain that the amount of work required to buy a weeks worth of groceries has decreased 80% since 1970?
Capitalism is alive and kicking and those who are fortunate to live in a country that has some form of capitalism are enjoying the fruits of it. Vietnam has been liberalizing their economy and it is now the fastest growing country in south east asia. Millions of Chinese citizens are moving into the middle class year after year.
Specialization and trade create wealth which everyone enjoys. You communists act like working for someone else is some sort of slavery. The labor market is a competition just like any other market. Companies must provide good working conditions, salaries and benefits in order to attract the best workers. It's almost like you say nature oppresses you because it requires you to consume food to live. How dare you have to work to live? At the end of the day, it is envy that inspires these crazy ideas you all have. In a free society, the only reason why someone would have more money than you is because they contribute more to society than you do...
Free market capitalism is a naturally occurring phenomenon when two people trade for their mutual benefit. Communism requires a centralized, totalitarian government to get between people trading with each other.
As for why there are a ton of countries that are still poor: To have a successful society you must have private property rights and a strong rule of law. These are the key to success. People who work must be able to keep the fruits of their labor without it being stolen from their through force or fraud and everyone must be equal under the law, meaning you cannot treat one group or person different than another. There are many countries in Africa, Asia and South America that have a political class that steal from the poor and are treated differently under the law than everyone else.
The natural state of humanity is abject poverty. These institutions must be in place to create a wealthy and prosperous society.
I don't know how you guys form your opinions. Communism has been tried, killed millions and failed miserably. You cannot just say, "they didn't do it right." The USSR did everything that was required when creating a communist utopian society.
Look around, we live longer, richer lives than any point in history. And yet you keep complaining about the oppression of all these rich people that are creating technologies that make our lives easier. Boo Hoo!
-Freedom Fighter
Well, if you read a page of any sort of leftist theory, you'd see that we acknowledge this. We simply think we can do much, much, much better.
Well, apparently not since it's been criticized for a million reasons and even for being an effectively "capitalist" society by contemporaries.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
The conditions for every class of society has increased over time. The problem is the economic disparity between classes and exploitative nature of capitalistic markets.
The question you have to ask is "Who produces in society and do the producers in society deserve to reap the benefits of their work?"
You'll find that many people on these boards aren't illusioned into thinking that the route taken by the USSR would actually lead strongly to a society beneficial to all, or even a society beneficial to the majority for that matter.
Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today. -Malcolm X
don't read the news much, eh?
yes like the ever increasing number of americans relying on food stamps and unemployment benefits to survive
which is surely why companies with enough clout (money) to do are trying to lower safety standards, wages, etc
that does not and has never existed
but certainly not in the united states
lol wut
um... so has capitalism
yes, "we" do, that is to say a tiny minority
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
I also want to point out that we live in a world where one of the most brutal wars ever has been raging for ten years over a mineral that is literally used for nothing but playstations and cell phones.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
Yes, but why did a single person have to perish for it? And why is this productive mechanism still left on "autopilot"? Why not put it all under the workers' control?
So instead of the fortune of monarchs to have born into their royal position, it's now been democratized to the fortune of whoever happens to be born into a First World industrialized country. It's still "autopilot" at best.
No, only those who can *afford* to be consumers are the ones who get to enjoy society's fruits. Many people have access to luxury goods not through actual work, but rather by financial manipulations, or pre-existing ownership of wealth, basically.
And, considering that the products of workers' work are sold off for more than the workers receive from the sale, workers *are* being invariably cheated at every hour of work -- some call it 'wage slavery'. (See visual aid, attached below.)
This is an oversimplification -- there are several factors involved, both on the worker's side of things, and also on the employer's side. Need to pay bills, job fit, and commuting time are significant factors for the worker. (If there is only one large factory as an area's main employer that greatly limits job choices for people in the area.)
This is a political slur -- insults are just that, and any underlying point of yours is tarnished because of it.
Consider that nature -- far from being "oppressive" -- actually *provides* nutritious kinds of foods *for free*, as a natural result of the sun's energy. Work is strictly a *social* construction, and could take many forms of administration / management -- it could actually be *leveraged*, like plumbing, to *automate* the supply of things from nature, and subsequent manufacturing processes on them, if any....
No, it's simply knowing that the society thing could be done better, especially so that no one has to die or suffer in the process of getting stuff from nature.
Or because they've inherited it, (etc.)
(Note that these statements are not compatible -- is trade "naturally occurring" or does it require the institution of private property rights and a strong rule of law?)
By 'Communism' you mean Stalinism, to be precise. And, on the point, so does capitalism -- it's technically called 'colonialism' and/or 'imperialism' -- note that each country's military forces have a centralized, totalitarian-like structure of authority.
You're ignoring that the *social* basis for upholding this-or-that person's *own* sovereignty of private property is hardly stable -- there has to be agreement on where the competition stops or else the competitiveness will overrun any tentative limits and revert back to "the law of the jungle". Colonialism is a very good example of this, where industrialized countries simply looted Africa, Asia, and Latin America despite any formal agreements made.
Yes, and the advanced, industrialized Western powers allow it to continue even though they have the means to put a stop to it.
This is far from being an acceptable statement. You would have to provide some reasoning here.
I'll agree that advanced forms of *social organization* are required, such as to industrialize, but the form doesn't *have* to be based on the institution of private property -- it could be the collectivization of the means of mass production under workers' control.
Yes, we *can* say "they didn't do it right". None of us were there during the rise of Stalin so the point is moot. Also, conditions are different today.
Hardly. (And there's another slur, coming from you: "utopian".)
No, there's still plenty of needless death in undeveloped and underdeveloped areas in the world.
Okay, but why can't it be done *consistently*, for *every* person on the planet?!
[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends
http://postimage.org/image/1bygthl38/
capitalism built the internet the internet you are using. If you have a job, it's because of capitalism in the end, and not because of some communistic system of shared wealth or whatever.
Acually the internet was built by a state institution that handed it over to Capitalism.
If we have a job, thats because we live in Capitalism and thats our only choice .... so thats a idiotic response.
A lot of, if not all, systems will yield some benefit however small or great, short lived or long lasting. The questions 'is it sustainable' and 'what is the fallout' need to be answered.
"whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"
http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
I think in the end capitalism has no fallout, or problems of sustainability for in the end nobody has to think about it, to be part of the system for in the end it just happens.
