why capitalism is horrible

[HighSchoolFailure1337]

ftw, suck it hollywood

1. Police do what they want, when they want

2. Laws are mostly unfair

3. Most laws revolve around companies

4. Archism is a primitive idea

5. Companies control America

[Ky]

Capitalism is an economic model, not a form of government.

0. Hollywood's full of liberals. It does need to suck it.
1. This is a failure on the part of the bureaucracy; establishing quotas for stopping "crimes", for one, leads law enforcement officials to perform questionable behavior as though they are above the law. For all intents and purposes, they are, and that's wrong. This has little to do with capitalism, if anything.
2. It isn't so much the laws that are unfair as are the regulations bureaucratic agencies establish; no one votes on those. Still, the laws are also unfair as a result of a corruption of representative democracy; the two-party system prevents people from getting a real choice and therefore fair representation. Again, this has nothing to do with capitalism.
3. The government should not accept bribes from corporations, but it does; politicians are hungry for money, and will cater to the whims of the few companies that are parasitic. This form of corporatism, empowered by government subsidization, is an affront to the liberties of small businesses - it leads us to the brink of socialism, and away from free-market capitalism.
4. You mean anarchism? While that system of "government" (more like the lack thereof) has a number of proponents, at this time no one is seriously considering it, and there's a good reason for it. Capitalism is certainly possible under such a system (and indeed, subsidizing large businesses would be impossible, fixing most of your problems here), but not ideal due to the lack of a central government and thus a lack of unity among a sovereign populace.
5. Not the companies - this oppressive system would not exist in the first place if not for government corruption. The bureaucratic agencies, many members of Congress, and perhaps even our current Presidential administration control America - they're using large corporations as a vehicle for this control.

To conclude, government control of the economy - which is what they're doing - is the beginning of socialism, and the end of capitalism. You think you're complaining about the free market when really your beef is with the planned market.

[James Comey]

(06-01-2014 03:13 AM)HighSchoolFailure1337 Wrote:   ftw, suck it hollywood

1. Police do what they want, when they want

2. Laws are mostly unfair

3. Most laws revolve around companies

4. Archism is a primitive idea

5. Companies control America

1. This isn't really related to capitalism but rather police brutality. That's a completely different issue altogether.

2. Again, this is with the government. Capitalism is an economic system, silly, not a political one.

3. Unfortunately, this is actually becoming a reality to an extent. SOPA, PIPA, etc. We need to look at how lobbying goes on....

4. Do you mean anarchism?

5. I think this is quite basic. Companies influence a lot what goes on in this country, but it isn't fully accurate to say they control the entire company.

[KFC Nyan Cat]

Capitalism has you never getting anything.

Communism has you getting things then having them taken away.

They are both awful.

[no]

Archism = opposite of anarchism. lrn2etymology.

(To be fair, it's not a real word, but still.)

[brainiac3397]

Capitalism is evil. FIGHT FOR COMMUNISM! FIGHT FOR LIBERTY!

I like capitalism of the libertarian sort. Otherwise I'm more commie.

[I Must Enter a Username]

I think he means anarchism. On the "[anarchism] is primitive" thing, somewhat related, one user on RL stated that, "From the very beginning, the realization of Anarchism was always conceived of as a modern, technological society. There are any number of descriptors one could apply to the neo-luddite fringe, but [primitivism] most certainly is not Anarchism, not by any stretch of the imagination."
On "anarchism=capitalism" being implied here, I've been skimming through the first couple of pages of this thread, and while it doesn't seem to have many impressive responses (maybe another thread is better?), it has brought up a few interesting points.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/opinions-anarc...l?t=154380

I originally was going to post that he could possibly be using "anarchy" as a synonym for chaos, which has been used by some revolutionary leftists (either historically or archaically now) to describe something about capitalism without ever actually meaning the ideology (or any ideology) as developed by various libertarian leftist theorists, which explains why I have yet to see any "kind" of "anarchISM" being criticized as capitalistic unless it's a Marxist shitting on Proudhon (who I don't like anyway) or something similar. Perhaps it also has something to do with writings in their original language going through translation.

[brainiac3397]

Tribalism is best. They even had small battles between tribes to keep things fun. Now we have some crap known as football. Physical contact? Yes, Blood sweat and swords? Nope.

[Alistoriv]

(06-01-2014 05:00 AM)KFC Nyan Cat Wrote:  Capitalism has you never getting anything.

Communism has you getting things then having them taken away.

They are both awful.

Do you understand the basic principles of communism?
Because it really seems like you don't.

[brainiac3397]

Ugh. That's like typical Murikan understanding of communism.

Though technically I'd like to point out fascism is basically the simplified concept of state taking your stuff, and then selling it back to you(whereas communism would be state taking it and re-distributing).
^Course I consider this horrendously thought out but I do find it helps as a stepping stone for people who don't understand political theory. Meaning such statements are followed by slow introduction to the more accurate description of the theory rather than being used as a quick general answer.

[thewake]

Quote:communism, the political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.

source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi.../communism

[brainiac3397]

That wouldn't mean you get your things taken, because in communsim, there is not "your" thing and "my" thing. There is "our" things...simply.

But classical Marxism also intends for a breakdown into a form of anarcho-communsim(since I believe Marx said something about how the proletariat would discover they no longer require the services of a central government)

[Ky]

^ An astute observation; in communism, all of "our" things get taken away.

[darkmind15]

all forms of goverment are a joke to me its basicly herding us like cattle

[Ky]

And most forms that lack a government are more like haphazardly shooting the cattle.

Minarchism with elements of provincial governments are preferable; have a small central government only to do the things that are vitally important for an entire country and preserve the freedoms of the people in each province/state, and medium-sized province/state governments to handle the details within their smaller realm of influence. No bureaucracy or bribes allowed.

[brainiac3397]

Bureaucracies are naturally created when a government moves towards a more centralized system.

Government is naturally created when many humans come together, whether it's tribal, monarchy, republic or autocratic.

I personally prefer decentralized form of government. Not just state though, I want it down a step to county-level. Of course that would also mean re-organizing all the counties to reduce the number of them.

Each county could then have districts made of up of multiple cities. Perhaps this decentralized system would also get more citizens involved in politics since it seems that the "closer" they feel to the issues and the politicians, the more likely they might feel like getting involved.

Spoiler (Click to View)

3,144 counties I believe.

[darkmind15]

atleast we arent as bad as singapor

[darkmind15]

tagging a wall you will get the shit beat out of you until the cop thinks youve learned

[brainiac3397]

The best thing for the civil stability of a nation would be unity created by a common enemy, and when you make that enemy eternal and elusive(and always managing to strike those within your society that may be questioning the existence of this enemy), then you will have a society held together by hate and/or fear of a threat to their lives and property.

[I Must Enter a Username]

(06-05-2014 01:48 AM)DoA Wrote:  ^ An astute observation; in communism, all of "our" things get taken away.

And you get sent to a gulag. Yes, that's completely part of communism. You've taught me so much about communism that I will do exactly what you describe it as when I become glorious Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin 3.120.


Related, I'm going through this thread which seems to have some interesting answers (You can skip the original post) to the "things get taken away" thing you just said.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/personal-prope...l?t=185614

[brainiac3397]

(06-05-2014 08:47 AM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 01:48 AM)DoA Wrote:  ^ An astute observation; in communism, all of "our" things get taken away.

And you get sent to a gulag. Yes, that's completely part of communism. You've taught me so much about communism that I will do exactly what you describe it as when I become glorious Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin 3.120.


Related, I'm going through this thread which seems to have some interesting answers (You can skip the original post) to the "things get taken away" thing you just said.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/personal-prope...l?t=185614

What's your opinion on the communism described in Ayn Rand's book. Atlas Shrugged(if you've read it?)

Of course she obviously wasn't fond of the USSR, so her are pretty harsh.

[I Must Enter a Username]

(06-05-2014 08:50 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 08:47 AM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 01:48 AM)DoA Wrote:  ^ An astute observation; in communism, all of "our" things get taken away.

And you get sent to a gulag. Yes, that's completely part of communism. You've taught me so much about communism that I will do exactly what you describe it as when I become glorious Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin 3.120.


Related, I'm going through this thread which seems to have some interesting answers (You can skip the original post) to the "things get taken away" thing you just said.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/personal-prope...l?t=185614

What's your opinion on the communism described in Ayn Rand's book. Atlas Shrugged(if you've read it?)

Of course she obviously wasn't fond of the USSR, so her are pretty harsh.

I've never thought much of her besides of several similiarities she had with Emma Goldman, and this thread probably covers it pretty good although I have not read it beyond the original post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/emma-goldman-v...index.html

Quote:Both used the works of Dostoevsky,Max Stirner, Nietzsche and Nikolay Chernyshevsky- both were promoting a form of individualism but on opposite ends. I obviously side with Goldman and think Rand was a tyrant but I want to discuss ,with capitalists, why or how you think Rand was able to come to such an opposite position from that of Goldman? Rand promoting abject selfishness under capitalism and Goldman promoting individuality within collectivism. Other than the fact both used many of the same philosophical sources/positions both were from Russia as well. Both saw the Bolshevik revolution as detrimental to freedom. Emma wrote My Further Disillusionment in Russia and most if not all of Rand's writings were a condemnation of collectivism in general.

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged or any overview of it, but I'm assuming that she has the "communism=stalin" opinion though I am not ready to doubt that she had a bit more to say, like "communism will always become slavery though it was not intended to", but maybe I'm also overestimating her even as simplistic as a "critique" like that would be.

[brainiac3397]

The commies in her book end up taking salary of workers to pay for one workers pregnant wife or anothers education, while those with no "need" suffer as its their money being used.

Believe me, she gets pretty harsh. The entire book is basically about how communism/socialism sends the nation in a spiraling crap hole from a glorious capitalist position(and lots of corruption included). Stupid scientists, cheap goods, inefficient scheduling, excessive involvement of state in the economy...that sort of stuff that pretty much makes communism look like a drunk demon out of hell.

[thewake]

I've read Atlas Shrugged. It's an exceptionally interesting, and expansive book, and it touches on everything from economics to religion to sex. The part of the book where Rand most damningly condemns the principles behind communism can be found here: http://thesnarkwhohuntsback.wordpress.co...d-part-ii/

It's one of my favorite parts. ^.^

[I Must Enter a Username]

(06-05-2014 03:24 PM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  The commies in her book end up taking salary of workers to pay for one workers pregnant wife or anothers education, while those with no "need" suffer as its their money being used.

Believe me, she gets pretty harsh. The entire book is basically about how communism/socialism sends the nation in a spiraling crap hole from a glorious capitalist position(and lots of corruption included). Stupid scientists, cheap goods, inefficient scheduling, excessive involvement of state in the economy...that sort of stuff that pretty much makes communism look like a drunk demon out of hell.

(06-06-2014 04:22 AM)W Kuts Wrote:  I've read Atlas Shrugged. It's an exceptionally interesting, and expansive book, and it touches on everything from economics to religion to sex. The part of the book where Rand most damningly condemns the principles behind communism can be found here: http://thesnarkwhohuntsback.wordpress.co...d-part-ii/

It's one of my favorite parts. ^.^

So basically, it shits on Marxism-Leninism which at the time of the writing was overwhelmingly dominant in the Communist movement.

[thewake]

(06-06-2014 04:36 AM)I Must Enter a Username Wrote:  

(06-05-2014 03:24 PM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  The commies in her book end up taking salary of workers to pay for one workers pregnant wife or anothers education, while those with no "need" suffer as its their money being used.

Believe me, she gets pretty harsh. The entire book is basically about how communism/socialism sends the nation in a spiraling crap hole from a glorious capitalist position(and lots of corruption included). Stupid scientists, cheap goods, inefficient scheduling, excessive involvement of state in the economy...that sort of stuff that pretty much makes communism look like a drunk demon out of hell.

(06-06-2014 04:22 AM)W Kuts Wrote:  I've read Atlas Shrugged. It's an exceptionally interesting, and expansive book, and it touches on everything from economics to religion to sex. The part of the book where Rand most damningly condemns the principles behind communism can be found here: http://thesnarkwhohuntsback.wordpress.co...d-part-ii/

It's one of my favorite parts. ^.^

So basically, it shits on Marxism-Leninism which at the time of the writing was overwhelmingly dominant in the Communist movement.

The book is very critical of all forms of beliefs that seek to marginalize the individual, from the spiritual to the political. To say it just argues against Marxism-Leninism is to miss the point. That excerpt is a look at the perverse results of the old phrase, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Rand believed no one person's needs give them a moral claim on another person's life (or labor, property, etc. which she believed are all extensions of a person's self-ownership). That's the root she was striking at. She was morally opposed to altruism, and was an egoist.

Ayn Rand Wrote:What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

source: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html

[I Must Enter a Username]

"[She] was an egoist"
That reminds me, I need to read more on the egoists, mainly Max Stirner.

[thewake]

I have one of Stirner's books but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

[brainiac3397]

Book was a great read. Very mentally stimulating.

I also read 2 other Rand books that were some interesting reads.

Unfortunately my friend who I let borrow my copy of Atlas Shrugged is overdue in returning it(that's what you get for turning a person into a libertarian starting with Atlas Shrugged). I paid $15 for it(it was a 1950s printed edition I borrowed from the library and "lost").

Basically my libertarian objectivist phase started after I read the book.

[darkmind15]

commies bassicly pen up their cattle while america takes the roman stand point and lets the cattle go free range