There is no such thing as the freemarket (3 Viewers)

[Kim Il-Sung]

Good effort as usual Sylvester but I think you misread your interlocutor on the Stalin point:

2.] Stalin's brand of capitalist-socialism created such a drastic rise in the standard of living for Russians, that the U.S.S.R. was used as a shining example of the benefits of communism in other parts of the world. However, this does not excuse the atrocities perpetrated by Stalin to service this "higher standard of living".

Obviously, however, the point he was making was still complete shit, unless of course one considers the starvation and deaths of tens of millions of people to be an increase in the overall 'standard of living'.

 

[Lolsmith]

'The free Market' is the excuse wankers claim for making the rich wealthier.

[youtube]okHGCz6xxiw[/youtube]
You are the one opposing Thatcher

You are stupid

So very stupid

 

[byebyebye]

Democracy is not an unqualified good. I'm not interested in this pre-suppositional nonsense.
Democracy is shit.



You mean the thing that government actively supported and took part in?




BAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAAHAHAAHAA


Until now I thought it was possible you were legit, but alas, the troll is revealed.

3.] One of the reasons the people in WWII Germany loved Hitler because he delivered a dramatic recovery from the effects of post WWI hyper-inflation.

Even though Nazi Germany experienced massive inflation, caused by Hitler's disastrous economic policies. Pssh. Stop this oblique statist masturbation session.

"Stalin and Hitler helped the oppressed masses by rejecting evil free market capitalism! Oh btw I'm not saying that they weren't bad or anything..."



Basically, you're perfectly happy with the poor being poorer, and long as the "rich" are poorer too?

Pointing out that there is some ALLEGED fault with "capitalism" is not enough to reject it.

Market based economies lead to people being happier and healthier than state run economies, and that's all that matters. The massive hardon you have for the pre-conceived greatness of "equality" does not justify the use of violence, which your beloved democracy is founded upon.

There, there, Sylvester. There's no reason for you to feel threatened or guilty. You just don't understand. You simply don't know any better because somewhere in your past, you had been imbibed with a false sense of superiority.

Life is not an "Us verses Them" affair. There is no need to try to justify inequitable advantages because one enjoys, or aspire to one day enjoy, a life of privilege. The thing that you have yet to learn is that wealth is not a "zero sum commodity".

What this means is that the premise that there is a finite amount of wealth is false. You're working with assumption that each piece of the pie that someone else gets, means that it's one less piece of pie that you get, and this is just not true. Instead of being a glutton and hogging all of the pie, (while making facile arguments as to why you deserve more pieces and someone else should be happy with less), a better solution is to simply bake more pies.

If the desired outcome is to enjoy the most out of life, then everyone else has to be able to enjoy the most out of life as well.

Why? Because other people contribute to your happiness by way of inventing new things and past times, scientific advancements or medical techniques which prolong or save lives, and other, untold numbers of innovations which enhance your quality of living, just as you contribute to theirs.

When you deny, (or make excuses for such a denial), a section of the population the opportunity to contribute to the betterment of humanity, you are also denying yourself the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of their contributions.

The idea that those of us who advocate for social equality are trying to diminish the wealth of the rich, is a nasty lie used to justify a greedy selfish mindset that sees the poor as a subhuman commodity. Tools to be used to increase their wealth. If they should happen to break, then it's, "Oh well, too bad. I'll just have to go buy more tools.".

The truth is that while equilibrium can be achieved by making everyone poor, or by having everyone meet somewhere in the middle, the ideal method is to elevate everyone to the top. That's the best way to maximize the potential of all of humanity so that everyone enjoys EQUAL benefits.

The object of your jerk off sessions, i.e. Freidman and Rothbard and the likes are short-sighted fools who would rather cut off their own nose in order to spite their face. The moment you willfully promote inequality is the moment that you must start drawing lines to delineate which people, (and the children of these people), that you wish to condemn. Furthermore, you have to acknowledge that you are also condemning yourself to forgo the potential benefits that these people and their children could have brought into your life and the lives of others.

Ideal equality is not achieved by making the rich poorer, but instead, it is done by making the poor richer.

Edit:

"Market based economies lead to people being happier and healthier than state run economies, and that's all that matters."

Unfortunately, our contention that such a thing as a "Market based economy" actually exists, is the "best" for people, and is all that matters, tells me that you didn't understand the article and you failed to grasp the significance of what followed the Bhopal Disaster.

 

[vikraman]

There, there, Sylvester. There's no reason for you to feel threatened or guilty. You just don't understand. You simply don't know any better because somewhere in your past, you had been imbibed with a false sense of superiority.

Life is not an "Us verses Them" affair. There is no need to try to justify inequitable advantages because one enjoys, or aspire to one day enjoy, a life of privilege. The thing that you have yet to learn is that wealth is not a "zero sum commodity".

What this means is that the premise that there is a finite amount of wealth is false. You're working with assumption that each piece of the pie that someone else gets, means that it's one less piece of pie that you get, and this is just not true. Instead of being a glutton and hogging all of the pie, (while making facile arguments as to why you deserve more pieces and someone else should be happy with less), a better solution is to simply bake more pies.

If the desired outcome is to enjoy the most out of life, then everyone else has to be able to enjoy the most out of life as well.

Why? Because other people contribute to your happiness by way of inventing new things and past times, scientific advancements or medical techniques which prolong or save lives, and other, untold numbers of innovations which enhance your quality of living, just as you contribute to theirs.

When you deny, (or make excuses for such a denial), a section of the population the opportunity to contribute to the betterment of humanity, you are also denying yourself the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of their contributions.

The idea that those of us who advocate for social equality are trying to diminish the wealth of the rich, is a nasty lie used to justify a greedy selfish mindset that sees the poor as a subhuman commodity. Tools to be used to increase their wealth. If they should happen to break, then it's, "Oh well, too bad. I'll just have to go buy more tools.".

The truth is that while equilibrium can be achieved by making everyone poor, or by having everyone meet somewhere in the middle, the ideal method is to elevate everyone to the top. That's the best way to maximize the potential of all of humanity so that everyone enjoys EQUAL benefits.

The object of your jerk off sessions, i.e. Freidman and Rothbard and the likes are short-sighted fools who would rather cut off their own nose in order to spite their face. The moment you willfully promote inequality is the moment that you must start drawing lines to delineate which people, (and the children of these people), that you wish to condemn. Furthermore, you have to acknowledge that you are also condemning yourself to forgo the potential benefits that these people and their children could have brought into your life and the lives of others.

Ideal equality is not achieved by making the rich poorer, but instead, it is done by making the poor richer.

Edit:

"Market based economies lead to people being happier and healthier than state run economies, and that's all that matters."

Unfortunately, our contention that such a thing as a "Market based economy" actually exists, is the "best" for people, and is all that matters, tells me that you didn't understand the article and you failed to grasp the significance of what followed the Bhopal Disaster.

You need capitalism to bake pies. Just putting it out there that no one would produce the marginal grain, blueberry (mmm, blueberry pie...), sugar etc without a price signal so as to justify that allocation of labour and resources.

Otherwise, good luck with your cool society bro. The rest of us will just be chilling here, enjoying our lack of famine.

 

[Lentern]

[youtube]okHGCz6xxiw[/youtube]
You are the one opposing Thatcher

You are stupid

So very stupid

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that it's not just you, but that video has been posted on this place a million times and in it she verbals the bloke she's heckling. If this is really the best all ye holy free-marketers have up your sleeve than really and truly you've long since lost the game.

 

[Lolsmith]

No of course not, I was addressing his specific "PEOPLE BEING RICH IS BAD" argument which is thoroughly wrong

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

Life is not an "Us verses Them" affair. There is no need to try to justify inequitable advantages because one enjoys, or aspire to one day enjoy, a life of privilege. The thing that you have yet to learn is that wealth is not a "zero sum commodity".

Of course life is (or ought to be) an ‘us versus them’ affair. Competition for scarce resources, wealth and/or privilege is one of the drivers of modern human progress. The world we live in today was not a product of a bunch of people sitting around in some feel-good fantasy, singing Kumbuya.

Competition, however, does not necessarily entail a ‘zero sum’ outcome. The whole point of the free market is that it increases individual choice. It rewards those with intelligence, initiative and entrepreneurial abilities. If you can successfully pull the levers of individual choice, you will find a measure of success in the free market system no matter how rich or poor you were when you began. Capitalism as the basis of wealth creation benefits all social classes – the only ones who wilt and die are the ones too slothful and lazy to improve their lot.

What this means is that the premise that there is a finite amount of wealth is false. You're working with assumption that each piece of the pie that someone else gets, means that it's one less piece of pie that you get, and this is just not true. Instead of being a glutton and hogging all of the pie, (while making facile arguments as to why you deserve more pieces and someone else should be happy with less), a better solution is to simply bake more pies.

This is where things get really fucking loopy. You assert that there is an infinite amount of wealth in the world at any given time; no justification for this assertion is provided. Obviously it is blatantly false; how the fuck can we have absolutely unlimited wealth in a world of scarce resources?

The economic allocation problem with your pie analogy has already been covered. To say that all the world’s problems can be fixed by ‘baking more pies’ is just about the most pathetically reductionist statement that I have ever read. To continue the analogy, decisions will need to be made regarding what type of pies are to be baked, what ingredients to bake them out of, how large they ought to be, whether you need some gluten-free pies, and so on. Capitalism is the only economic system in which these decisions can be appropriately made, because it involves a price mechanism. Without a price mechanism, decisions as to the allocation of scarce resources to the baking of pies are likely going to be made arbitrarily by some government bureaucrat.

Consider the Trabant, a ‘car for everyone’ that was built in certain Communist countries. The design brief for this car was along the lines ofyour ‘bake more pies’ brainwave above. As it was produced by the state, no competing car existed and resource allocation failed to conform to the needs of the market. Unsurprisingly, it turned out to be absolute shit, and inferior to pretty much every Western car as a day-to-day ownership proposition.

If the desired outcome is to enjoy the most out of life, then everyone else has to be able to enjoy the most out of life as well.

When you deny, (or make excuses for such a denial), a section of the population the opportunity to contribute to the betterment of humanity, you are also denying yourself the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of their contributions.

The truth is that while equilibrium can be achieved by making everyone poor, or by having everyone meet somewhere in the middle, the ideal method is to elevate everyone to the top. That's the best way to maximize the potential of all of humanity so that everyone enjoys EQUAL benefits.

The idea that those of us who advocate for social equality are trying to diminish the wealth of the rich, is a nasty lie used to justify a greedy selfish mindset that sees the poor as a subhuman commodity. Tools to be used to increase their wealth. If they should happen to break, then it's, "Oh well, too bad. I'll just have to go buy more tools.".

Ideal equality is not achieved by making the rich poorer, but instead, it is done by making the poor richer.

Is that right? Everyone ought to ‘enjoy the most out of life’ for ‘the betterment of humanity’? Can you please tell me what this bland pseudo-philosophical drivel actually fucking means?

What you have done here, is conform flawlessly to the leftist stereotype of somebody who bleats about ‘improving peoples' abilities’ without giving a fuck about what those people actually value in their lives. Observe Leon Trotsky explain the idea in a far more eloquent way than yourself:

"Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser, and subtler; his body will become more harmonious, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above these heights, new peaks will rise."

This sounds like an amazing vision of the future to credulous morons such as yourself. However, it completely ignores the fact that some people are naturally stupid. They are naturally lazy. They may not be at all interested in intellectual endeavour and would rather bludge on the dole and go surfing, and so on. The presupposition of the leftist is that redistribution of wealth would, in some unexplained way (perhaps re-educative propaganda), alter peoples’ natures to enable them to rise up and get ‘the most out of life’. Innumerable examples from around the world tell us that this idea is completely false.

Because of their natures, some poor people will always be poor. No amount of redistributive welfare will catapult them to the level of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. Instead, all that will happen is that the vast majorty of wealthy people who worked to earn their wealth will have that wealth coercively taken away. ‘Ideal equality’ is all well and good on paper, but ‘practical equality’ does indeed involve simply making everybody poorer.

 

[vikraman]

Kim, not much an ass-kisser but that is nearly the most complete demolition of a lefty I have ever seen. Good job. Although I have to take issue with this statement,

"Capitalism as the basis of wealth creation benefits all social classes – the only ones who wilt and die are the ones too slothful and lazy to improve their lot."

Entry barriers to markets and natural monopoly positions will and do skew that significantly.

Otherwise, championship stuff mate.

 

[Chemical Ali]

it was like taking a sledgehammer to an ant; bbb's post didn't even make sense

 

[cantseecats]

What you have done here, is conform flawlessly to the leftist stereotype of somebody who bleats about ‘improving peoples' abilities’ without giving a fuck about what those people actually value in their lives. Observe Leon Trotsky explain the idea in a far more eloquent way than yourself:

"Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser, and subtler; his body will become more harmonious, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above these heights, new peaks will rise."

That's a funny quote. What else did these guys believe along the lines of everyone being created equal?

 

[Chemical Ali]

Leon Trotsky obviously never went to an outer suburban shopping centre on dole day.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Let us go to a developing country where Nike or whatver has set up some factories. Let us now declare that Nike's labour policies are inherently "immoral", unfair, blah blah blah and impose laws against child labour, implement safety regulations and standards etc as well as throwing in the minumum wage. Would you be surprised if Nike now decided to close the factories, upon seeing all these measures and leave god knows how many workers unemployed and actually *worse off* than they were previously? I mean, why should they have to pay for the additional transportation cost to america when they could instead abide by the child labour and wage laws over in the states - without having to pay unneccessary costs elsewhere? Could you also tell us what would happened when outsourced companies are discouraged from staying?
What are the jobless to do now? Resort to stealing? Begging? Subsistance farming? Prostitution?
Are these altnernatives really uncommon?

Terrible, terrible argument. You're basically saying that these atrocities, and that's what they are, atrocities of the poor for the profit of Nike, are justifiable because they're better than the alternative. That we should allow Nike to exploit these developing countries for profit is ludicrous. Even more insane is your justification for their actions. What kind of fucked up world is this?

Of course life is (or ought to be) an ‘us versus them’ affair. Competition for scarce resources, wealth and/or privilege is one of the drivers of modern human progress. The world we live in today was not a product of a bunch of people sitting around in some feel-good fantasy, singing Kumbuya.

I beg to differ. The right-libertarian idea that humans are competitive and selfish by nature is baseless in logic, science and history. To assert that humanity's progress is spurred entirely upon competition is both ludicrous and factually wrong. What about the millions involved in volunteer work? What about the countless riots, demonstrations, protests and eventually revolutions sparked by people who do not want to live in a corrupt, competitive society? To continue with your point, human societies have always been stifled by those elements. Societies are characterised by the privileged and wealthy holding positions of power and using that power for their own gain. However, to say that since this is the way that things are and thus is the way they should continue is absurd. Free market theory is just another justification for top down, hierarchical distributions of social power. Just as what's called democracy here is just another method of control, free market capitalism fulfils the same function of instilling privilege.

Competition, however, does not necessarily entail a ‘zero sum’ outcome. The whole point of the free market is that it increases individual choice. It rewards those with intelligence, initiative and entrepreneurial abilities. If you can successfully pull the levers of individual choice, you will find a measure of success in the free market system no matter how rich or poor you were when you began. Capitalism as the basis of wealth creation benefits all social classes – the only ones who wilt and die are the ones too slothful and lazy to improve their lot.

The whole point of the free market is to remove barriers to exorbitant personal wealth and thus social control - for the capitalist and not the serf. How can you possibly claim that it 'rewards those with intelligence, initiative and entrepreneurial abilities...'? Ridiculous. The free market doesn't exist, never has existed and I'd bet my ass never will exist. The free market wouldn't last 5 minutes. It isn't sustainable to the minority in control, won't placate the masses and without the state's monopoly on force, what's to stop the disenfranchised population?

Newsflash you fuckin' right-wing slime: the world has been run on the idea of competition and social control for fucking centuries and it's time for a change. We need to get rid of individualist pieces of shit like you right-wing cunts who think it's okay for humans to exploit one another for personal gain. You utter faggots will insult groups like Greenpeace but laud giant corporations as saviours. Life under capitalism is total drudgery. From reading your comments it's like you fags have never worked a fucking day in your life. Capitalism isn't some great benevolent force that efficiently allocates resources based on virtues like intelligence. Capitalism is a fucking insatiable beast-cunt that fucks workers over, keeps the rich rich and ensures that the cycle of poverty is kept alive and well. It is a system of control that equates wealth with virtue. Capitalism turns free humans into automatons, strips their personas and replaces them with an unquenchable thirst for consumerist culture that keeps the system turning. Fuckin' name a problem the world has and I can trace it back to capitalist ideology.

Pollution - obvious, industrial revolution, mass production of unnecessary goods and reluctance of large corporations to adopt greener methods as they hurt profits in the short term.
Natural resources depleting - Overproduction. Companies making bullshit crap no one wants or needs to make profit that benefits a few CEOs.
Horrifyingly unequal distribution of wealth - Poor people exploited by corporate greed
The overwhelming power of multinational corporations over governments - addon to above: and using the power of governments to protect their monetary interests. This includes perpetrating genocide in the name of controlling economic situations/preventing socialist countries from achieving prosperity
Nuclear weapons - protecting wealth
Genocides - enactedf by the state under lies told by politicians for corporate gain/the state's gain/the countries economic gain as a whole
Racism, sexism, hatred of homosexuals, etc - used to spread division in Western society and help prevent class consciousness

The fucking list goes on. Fuck off.

 

[Lolsmith]

TacoTerrorist

Why are you purchasing/utilising computers if they only feed corporate greed which enslaves the many to serve the few

How come you are using the internet that fills the already overflowing coffers of telecommunication giants

You are polluting the environment by using a computer

and wasting natural resources

and not giving your wealth to those underneath yours to have equal distribution

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Because I live in a capitalist society and various social pressures inspired and strengthened by consumerism prevent me from living on the street, getting a mohawk and vandalising banks.

 

[Lolsmith]

So basically you won't do it because you don't believe in it enough but feel it necessary to criticise everyone else whilst doing the exact same things as them

Cool.

 

[cosmo kramer]

leftwingers doing whatever they want and then rationalizing their behavior afterwards to save face

Racism, sexism, hatred of homosexuals, etc - used to spread division in Western society and help prevent class consciousness

hahaha

ideologues of any extraction are absolutely hilarious

 

[zombie omie jay]

hahah this thread

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

I beg to differ. The right-libertarian idea that humans are competitive and selfish by nature is baseless in logic, science and history. To assert that humanity's progress is spurred entirely upon competition is both ludicrous and factually wrong. What about the millions involved in volunteer work? What about the countless riots, demonstrations, protests and eventually revolutions sparked by people who do not want to live in a corrupt, competitive society? To continue with your point, human societies have always been stifled by those elements. Societies are characterised by the privileged and wealthy holding positions of power and using that power for their own gain. However, to say that since this is the way that things are and thus is the way they should continue is absurd. Free market theory is just another justification for top down, hierarchical distributions of social power. Just as what's called democracy here is just another method of control, free market capitalism fulfils the same function of instilling privilege.

I would respond to this in the same vein as Lolsmith

If you are using a computer then you are benefiting from the fruits of competition

If you drive a car, ride on a bus, boat or in a plane, you are benefiting from the fruits of competition

When you buy your fair trade coffee you are benefiting from the fruits of competition in the coffee market

and so on

The whole point of the free market is to remove barriers to exorbitant personal wealth and thus social control - for the capitalist and not the serf. How can you possibly claim that it 'rewards those with intelligence, initiative and entrepreneurial abilities...'? Ridiculous. The free market doesn't exist, never has existed and I'd bet my ass never will exist. The free market wouldn't last 5 minutes. It isn't sustainable to the minority in control, won't placate the masses and without the state's monopoly on force, what's to stop the disenfranchised population?

Newsflash you fuckin' right-wing slime: the world has been run on the idea of competition and social control for fucking centuries and it's time for a change. We need to get rid of individualist pieces of shit like you right-wing cunts who think it's okay for humans to exploit one another for personal gain. You utter faggots will insult groups like Greenpeace but laud giant corporations as saviours. Life under capitalism is total drudgery. From reading your comments it's like you fags have never worked a fucking day in your life. Capitalism isn't some great benevolent force that efficiently allocates resources based on virtues like intelligence. Capitalism is a fucking insatiable beast-cunt that fucks workers over, keeps the rich rich and ensures that the cycle of poverty is kept alive and well. It is a system of control that equates wealth with virtue. Capitalism turns free humans into automatons, strips their personas and replaces them with an unquenchable thirst for consumerist culture that keeps the system turning. Fuckin' name a problem the world has and I can trace it back to capitalist ideology.

I find all this to be rather amusing and typical of leftists such as yourself. Blinded by your insatiable rage at 'the system', you can scarcely manage to string your profanities into coherent sentences. Instead of looking at hard facts and hard data, your instinct is a visceral reaction. To indicate the absurdity of your comments, I will juxtapose them with an excerpt from Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist:

During my lifetime there has only been one year in which the global economy shrank -- it was 2009 -- and that only by just 1.1%. It is forecast to grow by more than 4% in 2010. After fifty years real income per head has fallen (slightly) in only six countries (Afghanistan, Haiti, Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Somalia), life expectancy in three (Russia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe), and infant survival in none. In the rest they have rocketed upward. Many southern African countries saw life expectancy plunge in the 1990s as the AIDS epidemic spread, but even that trend has now reversed in most countries. For all the wars, recessions and disasters, the last fifty years have been remarkably, astonishingly, dramatically positive. The average South Korean lives 26 more years and earns 15 times as much income each year as he did in 1955 (and 15 times as much as his North Korean counterpart). The average Mexican lives longer now than the average Briton did in 1955. The average Botswanan earns more than the average Finn did in 1955. Infant mortality is lower today in Nepal than it was in Italy in 1951. The proportion of Vietnamese living on less than $2 a day has dropped from 90 per cent to 30 per cent in 20 years.

The rich have got richer, but the poor have done even better. The poor in the developing world grew their consumption twice as fast as the world as a whole between 1980 and 2000. The Chinese are ten times as rich, one-third as fecund and 28 years longer-lived than they were 50 years ago. Even Nigerians are twice as rich, 25 per cent less fecund and nine years longer-lived than they were in 1955. Despite a doubling of the world population, even the raw number of people living in absolute poverty (defined as less than a 1985 dollar a day) has fallen since the 1950s, let alone the percentage living in such absolute poverty. That number is, of course, still all too horribly high, but the trend is hardly a cause for despair. The United Nations estimates that poverty was reduced more in the last 50 years than in the previous 500.

All this from a system that you describe somewhat nebulously as a 'fucking insatiable beast-cunt'. Just imagine how good things would be without some of the market distortions that governments cause (e.g. trade barriers etc.)

Now I will take the time to show how all your 'capitalist problems' are nothing but an egregious post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:

Pollution - obvious, industrial revolution, mass production of unnecessary goods and reluctance of large corporations to adopt greener methods as they hurt profits in the short term.

There is no absolute causal link between capitalism and pollution. Believe it or not, non-capitalists also pollute the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

The Aral Sea disaster was caused by a bunch of Soviet cornucopians who were so convinced by the Marxist tenet of the transformation of human nature that they believed that as new 'enlightened humans', they knew enough to dry out an entire inland sea. This had nothing to do with capitalism or market pressure. It was entirely due to a seemingly logical extension of the idea of 'scientific socialism'.

Natural resources depleting - Overproduction. Companies making bullshit crap no one wants or needs to make profit that benefits a few CEOs.

You think that a command economy where resources are allocated arbitrarily is going to do any better?

Also, your remark about 'bullshit crap that no one needs or wants' simply demonstrates your willingness to seize the moral high ground and assume you know better than the individuals who really ought to make these decisions for themselves.

Horrifyingly unequal distribution of wealth - Poor people exploited by corporate greed

Obviously government has nothing to do with it...

The overwhelming power of multinational corporations over governments - addon to above: and using the power of governments to protect their monetary interests. This includes perpetrating genocide in the name of controlling economic situations/preventing socialist countries from achieving prosperity

I would believeyou if ExxonMobil has a standing army. But they don't. Governments are way, way, way, waywaywaywyawyay more powerful than corporations.

Nuclear weapons - protecting wealth

Nuclear weapons are a product of governments you imbecile. They were developed by governments to fight governments. In fact, global capitalism is the biggest deterrent the world has ever seen; no two countries in the McDonald's supply chain will ever wage war against each other.

Genocides - enactedf by the state under lies told by politicians for corporate gain/the state's gain/the countries economic gain as a whole


Racism, sexism, hatred of homosexuals, etc - used to spread division in Western society and help prevent class consciousness

These two are so laughable that I will not even bother.

Fuck

At the end of the day, all that your pathetic position rests upon is the desperate repetition of this word.

 

[cosmo kramer]

ive got a feeling that just about all of these mysterious one topic posters who make threads in here and then leave and never return are just alt accounts

The Aral Sea disaster was caused by a bunch of Soviet cornucopians who were so convinced by the Marxist tenet of the transformation of human nature that they believed that as new 'enlightened humans', they knew enough to dry out an entire inland sea. This had nothing to do with capitalism or market pressure. It was entirely due to a seemingly logical extension of the idea of 'scientific socialism'.

dont bother

all of these leftwinger retards can always refute this with lame no true scotsman shit about STATE CAPITALISM and what not

 

[TacoTerrorist]

I would respond to this in the same vein as Lolsmith

If you are using a computer then you are benefiting from the fruits of competition

If you drive a car, ride on a bus, boat or in a plane, you are benefiting from the fruits of competition

When you buy your fair trade coffee you are benefiting from the fruits of competition in the coffee market

and so on

That's not an argument. By using a computer I'm benefiting from technology, not the 'fruits of competition'. I'm benefiting from the labour of the people who made the computer, by trading the computer for my own labour. I want an intelligent response to the argument I posted, damnit. Instead, I got an ill-founded attack on my character.

I find all this to be rather amusing and typical of leftists such as yourself. Blinded by your insatiable rage at 'the system', you can scarcely manage to string your profanities into coherent sentences. Instead of looking at hard facts and hard data, your instinct is a visceral reaction. To indicate the absurdity of your comments, I will juxtapose them with an excerpt from Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist:

During my lifetime there has only been one year in which the global economy shrank -- it was 2009 -- and that only by just 1.1%. It is forecast to grow by more than 4% in 2010. After fifty years real income per head has fallen (slightly) in only six countries (Afghanistan, Haiti, Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Somalia), life expectancy in three (Russia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe), and infant survival in none. In the rest they have rocketed upward. Many southern African countries saw life expectancy plunge in the 1990s as the AIDS epidemic spread, but even that trend has now reversed in most countries. For all the wars, recessions and disasters, the last fifty years have been remarkably, astonishingly, dramatically positive. The average South Korean lives 26 more years and earns 15 times as much income each year as he did in 1955 (and 15 times as much as his North Korean counterpart). The average Mexican lives longer now than the average Briton did in 1955. The average Botswanan earns more than the average Finn did in 1955. Infant mortality is lower today in Nepal than it was in Italy in 1951. The proportion of Vietnamese living on less than $2 a day has dropped from 90 per cent to 30 per cent in 20 years.

The rich have got richer, but the poor have done even better. The poor in the developing world grew their consumption twice as fast as the world as a whole between 1980 and 2000. The Chinese are ten times as rich, one-third as fecund and 28 years longer-lived than they were 50 years ago. Even Nigerians are twice as rich, 25 per cent less fecund and nine years longer-lived than they were in 1955. Despite a doubling of the world population, even the raw number of people living in absolute poverty (defined as less than a 1985 dollar a day) has fallen since the 1950s, let alone the percentage living in such absolute poverty. That number is, of course, still all too horribly high, but the trend is hardly a cause for despair. The United Nations estimates that poverty was reduced more in the last 50 years than in the previous 500.
All this from a system that you describe somewhat nebulously as a 'fucking insatiable beast-cunt'. Just imagine how good things would be without some of the market distortions that governments cause (e.g. trade barriers etc.)

Half of my argument was profanity, I agree. This was done for a reason. I can't change your mind with logic, so I'd rather just vent my frustration. Increases in standards of living have improved slowly, true. However, productivity is not what makes a decent society. To say that 'Nigerians are twice as rich' is misleading. Nigeria is still a shithole. Nigerians live in poverty, along with most of the world that is used for slave-like cheap labour. Significant portions of even industrialised, First World countries are still living in relative poverty because the system has failed to provide for them. The gap between rich and poor is increasing.

I'll give you the upper hand for a moment. Let's just say that what you say is true, and at this rate eventually the entire world will become 'rich'. Let's say that under capitalism, everyone who wants to work will become well-off. This in itself causes significant social problems. Capitalism is a system which stratifies society into classes. There can be no social equality within a system like this because wealth provides a freedom of its own that isn't available to everyone. Even in a stateless free market, social stratification would be rampant.

Living within capitalism is great if you're rich. If you're one of the 90%+ that has to sell their labour for a pittance within a workplace you have no control over in order to survive, it's not so great. The argument that conditions are slowly improving in poverty-stricken regions of the world whilst the rich have more money than they can spend and enough power to dictate the world's decisions is frankly not good enough.

Pollution - obvious, industrial revolution, mass production of unnecessary goods and reluctance of large corporations to adopt greener methods as they hurt profits in the short term.
There is no absolute causal link between capitalism and pollution. Believe it or not, non-capitalists also pollute the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

The Aral Sea disaster was caused by a bunch of Soviet cornucopians who were so convinced by the Marxist tenet of the transformation of human nature that they believed that as new 'enlightened humans', they knew enough to dry out an entire inland sea. This had nothing to do with capitalism or market pressure. It was entirely due to a seemingly logical extension of the idea of 'scientific socialism'.

How can you possibly argue this point? How can you possibly assert with a straight face that capitalism isn't rapidly fucking up the planet? 'No causal link', what a joke.

Natural resources depleting - Overproduction. Companies making bullshit crap no one wants or needs to make profit that benefits a few CEOs.
You think that a command economy where resources are allocated arbitrarily is going to do any better?

Also, your remark about 'bullshit crap that no one needs or wants' simply demonstrates your willingness to seize the moral high ground and assume you know better than the individuals who really ought to make these decisions for themselves.

Private property and command economies aren't the only options. Are you implying that capitalism produces no waste? Are you suggesting that overproduction isn't contributing to dwindling resources?

Horrifyingly unequal distribution of wealth - Poor people exploited by corporate greed
Obviously government has nothing to do with it...

Irrelevant. Government exists to protect private property.

The overwhelming power of multinational corporations over governments - addon to above: and using the power of governments to protect their monetary interests. This includes perpetrating genocide in the name of controlling economic situations/preventing socialist countries from achieving prosperity
I would believeyou if ExxonMobil has a standing army. But they don't. Governments are way, way, way, waywaywaywyawyay more powerful than corporations.

Governments and corporations go hand in hand. Government exists solely to physically protect private property and maintain the status quo. The fact that ExxonMobil doesn't have a standing army doesn't mean that they can't influence government to look after their interests. Halliburton doesn't need a standing army when they can bomb Iraq through the USAF.

Nuclear weapons - protecting wealth
Nuclear weapons are a product of governments you imbecile. They were developed by governments to fight governments. In fact, global capitalism is the biggest deterrent the world has ever seen; no two countries in the McDonald's supply chain will ever wage war against each other.

And produced by private corporations for profit. Global capitalism, or more precisely, unrestricted greed, is the biggest proponent of war. Almost all modern warfare is carried out for economic reasons.

These two are so laughable that I will not even bother.

Or you can't provide an argument because you don't have a leg to stand on.

Justify the existence of private property.