RIP School Survival Forums
August 2001 - June 2017

The School Survival Forums are permanently retired. If you need help with quitting school, unsupportive parents or anything else, there is a list of resources on the Help Page.

If you want to write about your experiences in school, you can write on our blog.

To everyone who joined these forums at some point, and got discouraged by the negativity and left after a while (or even got literally scared off): I'm sorry.

I wasn't good enough at encouraging people to be kinder, and removing people who refuse to be kind. Encouraging people is hard, and removing people creates conflict, and I hate conflict... so that's why I wasn't better at it.

I was a very, very sensitive teen. The atmosphere of this forum as it is now, if it had existed in 1996, would probably have upset me far more than it would have helped.

I can handle quite a lot of negativity and even abuse now, but that isn't the point. I want to help people. I want to help the people who need it the most, and I want to help people like the 1996 version of me.

I'm still figuring out the best way to do that, but as it is now, these forums are doing more harm than good, and I can't keep running them.

Thank you to the few people who have tried to understand my point of view so far. I really, really appreciate you guys. You are beautiful people.

Everyone else: If after everything I've said so far, you still don't understand my motivations, I think it's unlikely that you will. We're just too different. Maybe someday in the future it might make sense, but until then, there's no point in arguing about it. I don't have the time or the energy for arguing anymore. I will focus my time and energy on people who support me, and those who need help.

-SoulRiser

The forums are mostly read-only and are in a maintenance/testing phase, before being permanently archived. Please use this time to get the contact details of people you'd like to keep in touch with. My contact details are here.

Please do not make a mirror copy of the forums in their current state - things will still change, and some people have requested to be able to edit or delete some of their personal info.


Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Capitalism: The Debate
Author Message
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #211
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

John Tuttle Wrote:
BaronVonStrangle Wrote:Oh, so that's your cause of butthurtedness. I said MOST people have done a u-turn, not ALL. Maybe if you'd chill your almonds for one second you'd be able to learn to read.

You clearly called anybody who agrees with Weswammy sheep. You have no brain so you call those who disagree with you sheep. Really, sheep? That is so uncreative. There are tons of animal analogies that don't make you look like the conspiracy theorist nutjob that you are. How about termites? They follow orders. Or ants for that matter. I don't care about your u-turn bullshit. I am calling you out on the use of the word sheep. Sheep.
Don't get all riled up John, Baron is a huge barrel of lulz. And I'm actually one to think that anyone who completely agrees with me is a sheep. If people want to carbon copy my views, they shouldn't. Everyone is wrong about something.

I want them to prove me wrong. Sure, I might not accept that they are right. I might get butthurt. However, everyone else will probably realize that I'm wrong and amend their views as such.

And who knows? I might just believe them if they bring up unimpeachable evidence. I have only two gods, freedom and truth.

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
08-02-2011 06:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aaaaaaasd Offline
Grorious Moddu

Posts: 7,344
Joined: Oct 2007
Thanks: 1
Given 50 thank(s) in 38 post(s)
Post: #212
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

John Tuttle Wrote:You clearly called anybody who agrees with Weswammy sheep. You have no brain so you call those who disagree with you sheep. Really, sheep? That is so uncreative. There are tons of animal analogies that don't make you look like the conspiracy theorist nutjob that you are. How about termites? They follow orders. Or ants for that matter. I don't care about your u-turn bullshit. I am calling you out on the use of the word sheep. Sheep.
Um, no I didn't. Is your rage such that it prevents you from being able to read or assemble a coherent thought? Are you seriously that mad over the use of the word sheep? Did sheep rape and then murder your entire family? Are you afraid of the sheepapocolypse? Is your patronus a sheep when you wanted it to be a stag? Are you actually a sheep with a human mind and thus standing up for all sheepkind?
08-02-2011 06:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #213
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

[Image: ebilsheep.png]

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
08-02-2011 06:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartofShadows Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,557
Joined: Dec 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 80 thank(s) in 73 post(s)
Post: #214
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

Weswammy Wrote:I want them to prove me wrong. Sure, I might not accept that they are right. I might get butthurt. However, everyone else will probably realize that I'm wrong and amend their views as such.

And who knows? I might just believe them if they bring up unimpeachable evidence. I have only two gods, freedom and truth.

Weswammy that was truly beautiful.
You should make your own cards.

[Image: WARZONES_subs_hostility.png]
image hosting jpg
08-02-2011 08:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #215
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

HeartofShadows Wrote:You should make your own cards.
I probably could.

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
08-02-2011 08:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Swift Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,316
Joined: Jan 2009
Thanks: 0
Given 9 thank(s) in 8 post(s)
Post: #216
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

Why do I like socialism?

It's free. Socialism is a system that has the decision making apparatus spread among the majority of a country. Everyone has a fair say in how the economy should be run. Also, I'm concerned about the collectivization of big industries, a single barber shop is not a threat to socialism.

It's moral. Socialism eliminates the exploitation of man by man. It allows societies to move into a progressive future as a whole, rather than fighting over profit.

It fuels progress. While the Great Depression drained the economies and industry of capitalist countries, the industrial production of the Soviet Union(while the country had deformities in leadership, it showed what power a planned economy could produce) increased 250% between within just a few years, as Leon Trotsky describes in the Revolution Betrayed:

The vast scope of industrialization in the Soviet Union, as against a background of stagnation and decline in almost the whole capitalist world, appears unanswerably in the following gross indices. Industrial production in Germany, thanks solely to feverish war preparations, is now returning to the level of 1929. Production in Great Britain, holding to the apron strings of protectionism, has raised itself 3 or 4 per cent during these six years. Industrial production in the United States has declined approximately 25 per cent; in France, more than 30 per cent. First place among capitalist countries is occupied by Japan, who is furiously arming herself and robbing her neighbors. Her production has risen almost 40 per cent! But even this exceptional index fades before the dynamic of development in the Soviet Union. Her industrial production has increased during this same period approximately 3½ times, or 250 per cent. The heavy industries have increased their production during the last decade (1925 to 1935) more than 10 times. In the first year of the five-year plan (1928 to 1929), capital investments amounted to 5.4 billion rubles; for 1936, 32 billion are indicated.

It reduces poverty. Socialism's main program is to eliminate poverty. No, I'm not advocating a system where everyone is paid the same, but I'm arguing for a minimum and maximum wage.

It's human. Socialism captures the spirit of humanity. In our earliest ages, human civilization was built on collaboration between man and man, not the exploitation of man by man. Socialism practices the golden rule: "Treat others as you want to be treated", a moral found in nearly every legitimate religion on Earth. Everyone receives equality in terms of legal, social, economic and civil rights.

That's socialism. It allows man to help man, and in all systems that profess to more fair and free, human greed and exploitation work against the dreams of freedom, restricting freedom to the amount of means of productions that you own. If the majority of the population does not have equal rights or democratic control of most of the economy, it's not socialism.

Every economic system will fade and be surpassed by another. This is true with the replacement of capitalism by socialism. It follows the laws of civil evolution.

A clarification: When I say socialism, I mean revolutionary socialism or the the Platform and Principles of the Socialist Party USA. I do not mean Stalinism, Juche, or the ideologies and practices of modern China, North Korea, Viet Nam, and any "socialist" or "Communist" left over from the 20th century, state capitalism, state socialism. I mean a society where all men and women are virtually equal and democratically control most of the economy.

"I heard a joke once. Man goes to doctor says "I'm terribly depressed". Doctor says "I know just what you should do. Poliacci the clown is in town, go see him, you'll be cheered right up." The man bursts into tears. "But Doctor, I am Poliacci." Funny joke. Roll on snare drum. Everyone laugh."

-Rorschach


[Image: BANANAMAN.gif]
08-02-2011 12:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartofShadows Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,557
Joined: Dec 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 80 thank(s) in 73 post(s)
Post: #217
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

Wait...
That's a beautiful sort of statement but you're comrade swift?
Then..... I guess I was speaking to the wrong comrade.

[Image: WARZONES_subs_hostility.png]
image hosting jpg
08-02-2011 12:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Miller0700 Offline
Here to save you.

Posts: 3,405
Joined: Oct 2010
Thanks: 64
Given 137 thank(s) in 84 post(s)
Post: #218
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

Oh boy, a fucking debate is gonna happen.

Previously known as Derchin.
08-02-2011 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #219
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

Derchin Wrote:Oh boy, a fucking debate is gonna happen.
Lock and load.

Swift Wrote:Why do I like socialism?

It's free. Socialism is a system that has the decision making apparatus spread among the majority of a country. Everyone has a fair say in how the economy should be run. Also, I'm concerned about the collectivization of big industries, a single barber shop is not a threat to socialism.
Socialism is a system that has the economic apparatus in the hands of a government. It's not free, it's a central plan. It's the fatal conceit Hayek talked about, the stuff Mises wrote about in his Socialism. The idea that a government can gather all the knowledge that the price system gathers is patently absurd. How can it allocate scarce resources efficiently when it can't even run public schools effectively?

Oh, you just want the "right" people in charge? Where do you find these men that are made of finer clay than everyone else, that they can somehow plan for everyone and won't abuse their power?

Quote:It's moral. Socialism eliminates the exploitation of man by man. It allows societies to move into a progressive future as a whole, rather than fighting over profit.
Capitalism incentivizes cooperation. The butcher cooperates with the farmer. They both win because both make a a profit. As Bastiat said, "The profit of the one is the profit of the other." People don't enter into voluntary exchange unless both parties believe they will gain from it. It's not exploitation, because everyone wins.

Quote:It fuels progress. While the Great Depression drained the economies and industry of capitalist countries, the industrial production of the Soviet Union(while the country had deformities in leadership, it showed what power a planned economy could produce) increased 250% between within just a few years, as Leon Trotsky describes in the Revolution Betrayed:

Hidden stuff:
The vast scope of industrialization in the Soviet Union, as against a background of stagnation and decline in almost the whole capitalist world, appears unanswerably in the following gross indices. Industrial production in Germany, thanks solely to feverish war preparations, is now returning to the level of 1929. Production in Great Britain, holding to the apron strings of protectionism, has raised itself 3 or 4 per cent during these six years. Industrial production in the United States has declined approximately 25 per cent; in France, more than 30 per cent. First place among capitalist countries is occupied by Japan, who is furiously arming herself and robbing her neighbors. Her production has risen almost 40 per cent! But even this exceptional index fades before the dynamic of development in the Soviet Union. Her industrial production has increased during this same period approximately 3½ times, or 250 per cent. The heavy industries have increased their production during the last decade (1925 to 1935) more than 10 times. In the first year of the five-year plan (1928 to 1929), capital investments amounted to 5.4 billion rubles; for 1936, 32 billion are indicated.
One data point and you're jumping for joy. Was the increase sustainable, or was it just an illusion that ultimately crashed? Was it allocated in the most efficient manner or was it inefficient, clumsy?
If the Soviet Union was so prosperous why do I read about long lines at state food stores? Or why were there so many famines?

Quote:It reduces poverty. Socialism's main program is to eliminate poverty. No, I'm not advocating a system where everyone is paid the same, but I'm arguing for a minimum and maximum wage.
I don't care what the aim is. As the old saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Where in the world do you find poor people raising themselves out of poverty? Not in the USSR. Not in collectivist countries. No, the places where poor people do better are capitalist countries. In America the poor have a standard of living that people only dreamed of 70 years ago, and the Soviet Union has collapsed because of its socialist policies.

Quote:It's human. Socialism captures the spirit of humanity. In our earliest ages, human civilization was built on collaboration between man and man, not the exploitation of man by man.

Capitalism is not exploitation. By your logic, I could just as well say workers are exploiting the capitalists and entrepreneurs. The entrepreneur undergoes risk so that he can start a business and accumulate capital. That capital, mixed with the worker's labor, produces value that could not have been produced without the capital. A worker in a shoe factory wouldn't be able to make too many shoes without the factory, and the entrepreneur is paying the worker money above and beyond what the worker would have made if he was working without capital. By a similar logic, I have made workers seem to be the parasite and capitalists the exploited.

But neither is true. Both workers and capitalists benefit from the employer-employee relationship. Both gain something they couldn't have had without it.

Quote:Socialism practices the golden rule: "Treat others as you want to be treated", a moral found in nearly every legitimate religion on Earth. Everyone receives equality in terms of legal, social, economic and civil rights.
Capitalism is the system that practices the golden rule. Capitalism is the system where men trade value for value. It's not the system where the productive have their productivity sapped to pay for the need of other men. It's the system that protects private property. That allows people to help themselves. It's the system that brought us the Industrial Revolution. The automobile. The light bulb. It's the system that has allowed people a standard of living never dreamed of under authoritarian measures of economic control.

Quote:That's socialism. It allows man to help man, and in all systems that profess to more fair and free, human greed and exploitation work against the dreams of freedom, restricting freedom to the amount of means of productions that you own.
As I have stated and demonstrated before, capitalism is not exploitation.
However, I'll give it to you that it's greedy. I'm not going to lie just to make capitalism more appetizing to the illogical among us. Greed, or self-interest, is integral to capitalism. But this greed has created cooperation. People cooperate with each other to make money. Even the manufacture of something as simple as a pencil requires the cooperation of untold how many people. All these people benefited not by theft, not by exploitation, but by the force of greed channeled through non-violent, voluntary trade.

In capitalism you must create something or perform a service that other people deem to have value in order to get by, and the person you do business with has to give you something of value in return.

Greed is a virtue, my friend.

Quote:If the majority of the population does not have equal rights or democratic control of most of the economy, it's not socialism.
You assume that somehow elected leaders would be more virtuous than the unelected? That they would be somehow less corrupted by power? Or do you assume that mobocracy is incapable of oppressing people? Is theft somehow legitimate just because government does it, or just because the majority of the people support it?

Democratically elected planners have just as little foresight as unelected planners. They're just as fallible, just as incapable of planning.

Quote:Every economic system will fade and be surpassed by another. This is true with the replacement of capitalism by socialism. It follows the laws of civil evolution.
"From a correct Marxian point of view … all measures designed to restrain, to regulate and to improve capitalism were simply "petty-bourgeois" nonsense … True socialists should not place any obstacles in the way of capitalist evolution. For only the full maturity of capitalism could bring about socialism. It is not only vain, but harmful to the interests of the proletarians to resort to such measures."
~Ludwig von Mises

Quote:A clarification: When I say socialism, I mean revolutionary socialism or the the Platform and Principles of the Socialist Party USA. I do not mean Stalinism, Juche, or the ideologies and practices of modern China, North Korea, Viet Nam, and any "socialist" or "Communist" left over from the 20th century, state capitalism, state socialism. I mean a society where all men and women are virtually equal and democratically control most of the economy.
You can argue all you want about what constitutes socialism. At one time all that most people considered socialism was central planning for the ends of material equality. That's like me saying that the United States isn't capitalist because it's not capitalist enough, or in the way I like it. The USSR, China, or North Korea aren't examples of democratic socialism.

But you assume that democratic socialism would be any different. Let's compare India after Independence and Japan after the Meiji Restoration. India was straddled with the inhuman yoke of imperialism and Japan was isolated from the rest of the world, under its own form of despotism. Yet, Japan began market liberalization and free trade while India accepted a form of socialism and a restriction of the free market. Don't forget, India was a democracy and still is. Yet Japan is currently an industrialized high tech society while India has huge amounts of poor on the streets.

Oh, you say that Japan just got a head start? Well explain South Korea, a nation ravaged by war in the 1950s is now also boasting a much higher standard of living than it used too have, thanks to capitalism. India even had a head start over South Korea. You say that it's because India is so overpopulated? Well explain Hong Kong, the freest economy in the world and very prosperous, and it's crowded condition. Hong Kong is even on a rock, with practically no natural resources. India, however, has many natural resources.

Now tell me, does socialism really work?

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
08-03-2011 01:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT Offline
Hi, I 'm anti-civ.

Posts: 775
Joined: Mar 2011
Thanks: 0
Given 9 thank(s) in 8 post(s)
Post: #220
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

Quote:A clarification: When I say socialism, I mean revolutionary socialism or the the Platform and Principles of the Socialist Party USA. I do not mean Stalinism, Juche, or the ideologies and practices of modern China, North Korea, Viet Nam, and any "socialist" or "Communist" left over from the 20th century, state capitalism, state socialism. I mean a society where all men and women are virtually equal and democratically control most of the economy.

Quote:Socialism is a system that has the economic apparatus in the hands of a government. It's not free, it's a central plan. It's the fatal conceit Hayek talked about, the stuff Mises wrote about in his Socialism. The idea that a government can gather all the knowledge that the price system gathers is patently absurd. How can it allocate scarce resources efficiently when it can't even run public schools effectively?

Oh, you just want the "right" people in charge? Where do you find these men that are made of finer clay than everyone else, that they can somehow plan for everyone and won't abuse their power?

Weswammy does not know what socialism is or he just can't accept it, no wonder he is a capitalist, even though Swift or whoever clearly defines it.

True socialism is anarchy. The Lenninist state socialists killed anarchists in the Boleshevik revolution.

Socialism has been misrepresented by communism, and authoritarian socialist ( same thing different wordings).

Democratic socialism, Libertarian socialism, or social anarchism are basically what he's talking about and he's right. Socialism has been misrepresented by both capitalist countries and the soviets themselves during WWII. Americans called them socialist to make Americans fear socialism, and the Soviets called it socialism to make themselves look like the good guys, and so does North Korea, Cuba, etc.



Watch on YouTube

To be an anarchist, is to suffer greatly. To be a black woman is to suffer secretly. To be the earth, is to suffer silently.

I wish no harm on anyone, but those whose harmful ways will not stop without the same harm.

It's time we kill this cancerous system, before it kills us and everything left of gaia. Rise from our immaturity and take back our autonomy!

[Image: 2010-10-04-lost-my-appetite.jpg]
08-03-2011 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Swift Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,316
Joined: Jan 2009
Thanks: 0
Given 9 thank(s) in 8 post(s)
Post: #221
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

Weswammy Wrote:Socialism is a system that has the economic apparatus in the hands of a government. It's not free, it's a central plan. It's the fatal conceit Hayek talked about, the stuff Mises wrote about in his Socialism. The idea that a government can gather all the knowledge that the price system gathers is patently absurd. How can it allocate scarce resources efficiently when it can't even run public schools effectively?

Socialism in the hands of a government? I'm okay with that. I'd rather have the economy in the hands of a government I have a voice in, rather than a market where my voice is more limited.

Weswammy Wrote:Oh, you just want the "right" people in charge? Where do you find these men that are made of finer clay than everyone else, that they can somehow plan for everyone and won't abuse their power?

I'm not arguing for a Great Man version of history or for some bureaucrats to have 110% control of the state, did you miss the part where I said the economy is controlled by the majority of the population? You're making assumptions, but nice try.

Quote:It's moral. Socialism eliminates the exploitation of man by man. It allows societies to move into a progressive future as a whole, rather than fighting over profit.
Weswammy Wrote:Capitalism incentivizes cooperation. The butcher cooperates with the farmer. They both win because both make a a profit. As Bastiat said, "The profit of the one is the profit of the other." People don't enter into voluntary exchange unless both parties believe they will gain from it. It's not exploitation, because everyone wins.

In socialism, the farmer and butcher can still cooperate. The small business of the farmer and butcher , at least in places like America who's socialism will develop in a more market socialist fashion because of the American consciousness and culture, will more likely still be able to exist. The farmer and butcher's interests could also be inputted in a local worker's council.

Weswammy Wrote:One data point and you're jumping for joy. Was the increase sustainable, or was it just an illusion that ultimately crashed? Was it allocated in the most efficient manner or was it inefficient, clumsy?
If the Soviet Union was so prosperous why do I read about long lines at state food stores? Or why were there so many famines?

I'm not arguing for a zombie revival of the USSR and obviously there were many economic and social problems, but many of those problems were caused by civil war because of the unnecessary intervention of Czechoslovakia, Australia, Canada, the UK, Japan, the USA, Serbia, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Romania, AND the civil war caused by the loyalist White Russian movement. If Western powers had stayed out of Russia, Russian socialism would have been able to develop normally, without bureaucratic deformations or the polices of War Communism. Capitalism and Imperialism destroyed any cause of real socialism happening in Russia and the socialist revolutions in the 20th century following it.

Weswammy Wrote:I don't care what the aim is. As the old saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Where in the world do you find poor people raising themselves out of poverty? Not in the USSR. Not in collectivist countries. No, the places where poor people do better are capitalist countries. In America the poor have a standard of living that people only dreamed of 70 years ago, and the Soviet Union has collapsed because of its socialist policies.

You're saying this in a time where the gap between in the rich and poor in the US is at its biggest point in decades. I can get my socialist buddies over at another forum to dig up those statistics if you'd like.

There's a reason why the poor don't raise themselves in poor countries, there's nothing to raise themselves on! And any attempt to reform places like Africa like the Burkina Faso's administration of Marxist Thomas Sankara in the 1980's, which due his policies of collectivization made the country's food supply self-sufficient in just a matter of 3 years.

The USSR collapsed when it developed capitalist policies, though it never was really socialist as it is. But now thanks to the USSR's collapse, Russia has the birth rate of a third world country! I used to have a chart of these statistics comparing modern Russia vs. "Red" Russia, but the site removed it. I found the image on SS too.Here's the closest thing I could find, showing how Russia's quality of life has been since the collapse of the USSR and it ain't pretty.

Weswammy]
Capitalism is not exploitation. By your logic, I could just as well say workers are exploiting the capitalists and entrepreneurs. The entrepreneur undergoes risk so that he can start a business and accumulate capital. That capital, mixed with the worker's labor, produces value that could not have been produced without the capital. A worker in a shoe factory wouldn't be able to make too many shoes without the factory, and the entrepreneur is paying the worker money above and beyond what the worker would have made if he was working without capital. By a similar logic, I have made workers seem to be the parasite and capitalists the exploited.

But neither is true. Both workers and capitalists benefit from the employer-employee relationship. Both gain something they couldn't have had without it.[/quote]

Why is the worker making shoes in a factory? Because he knows he will die without the salary he gains from it. But the materials the shoes are made of are cheaper than the shoe is sold for, the worker gets part of the profit from the shoe he produced.

[quote=Weswammy Wrote:
Capitalism is the system that practices the golden rule. Capitalism is the system where men trade value for value. It's not the system where the productive have their productivity sapped to pay for the need of other men. It's the system that protects private property. That allows people to help themselves. It's the system that brought us the Industrial Revolution. The automobile. The light bulb. It's the system that has allowed people a standard of living never dreamed of under authoritarian measures of economic control.

Look, capitalism has its placed in history. Capitalism has brought us many great things, the bourgeoisie, the class that caused the capitalist revolution, virtually invented human rights and invented industrial production.

Capitalism is a part of human history. But it will fade away. Every economic system will. Capitalism works. Feudalism worked. Slave societies worked. Pre-civilization worked. Socialism will work.


Weswammy Wrote:As I have stated and demonstrated before, capitalism is not exploitation.
However, I'll give it to you that it's greedy. I'm not going to lie just to make capitalism more appetizing to the illogical among us. Greed, or self-interest, is integral to capitalism. But this greed has created cooperation. People cooperate with each other to make money. Even the manufacture of something as simple as a pencil requires the cooperation of untold how many people. All these people benefited not by theft, not by exploitation, but by the force of greed channeled through non-violent, voluntary trade.

In capitalism you must create something or perform a service that other people deem to have value in order to get by, and the person you do business with has to give you something of value in return.

Greed is a virtue, my friend.

Calling greed "self-interest" doesn't make it any better. Greed is not a virtue. Greed is a motivation and an obsession.

Weswammy Wrote:You assume that somehow elected leaders would be more virtuous than the unelected? That they would be somehow less corrupted by power? Or do you assume that mobocracy is incapable of oppressing people? Is theft somehow legitimate just because government does it, or just because the majority of the people support it?

Is theft legitimate because of it's a part of how capitalism works? Is taking over countries and overthrowing leaders in the interests of corporations theft?

Weswammy Wrote:Democratically elected planners have just as little foresight as unelected planners. They're just as fallible, just as incapable of planning.

Good to know!

Weswammy Wrote:"From a correct Marxian point of view … all measures designed to restrain, to regulate and to improve capitalism were simply "petty-bourgeois" nonsense … True socialists should not place any obstacles in the way of capitalist evolution. For only the full maturity of capitalism could bring about socialism. It is not only vain, but harmful to the interests of the proletarians to resort to such measures."
~Ludwig von Mises

I see nothing with this quote or really see anything that my post disagrees with. Capitalism formed the material conditions for socialism. And socialism will supersede capitalism.

Weswammy Wrote:You can argue all you want about what constitutes socialism. At one time all that most people considered socialism was central planning for the ends of material equality. That's like me saying that the United States isn't capitalist because it's not capitalist enough, or in the way I like it. The USSR, China, or North Korea aren't examples of democratic socialism.

If a major factor of socialism is left out like democratic control of means of production, it isn't socialism. Sorry.

Weswammy Wrote:Let's compare India after Independence and Japan after the Meiji Restoration. India was straddled with the inhuman yoke of imperialism and Japan was isolated from the rest of the world, under its own form of despotism. Yet, Japan began market liberalization and free trade while India accepted a form of socialism and a restriction of the free market. Don't forget, India was a democracy and still is. Yet Japan is currently an industrialized high tech society while India has huge amounts of poor on the streets.

India did not accept a form of socialism, if anything a social democracy. I'm not saying capitalism can't work. Capitalism works! It really does! But it will end.

Weswammy Wrote:Oh, you say that Japan just got a head start? Well explain South Korea, a nation ravaged by war in the 1950s is now also boasting a much higher standard of living than it used too have, thanks to capitalism. India even had a head start over South Korea. You say that it's because India is so overpopulated? Well explain Hong Kong, the freest economy in the world and very prosperous, and it's crowded condition. Hong Kong is even on a rock, with practically no natural resources. India, however, has many natural resources.

Explain how a country like Burkina Faso, having one of the world's lowest GDPs, can within not even half a decade, can become self sufficient in terms of food? Wheat production went from 1700 kg per hectare to 3800 kg per hectare. You know what happened? A socialist government came into power. And that wasn't even the direct result of the government! Sankara's government let the peasants handle the land.



Weswammy Wrote:Now tell me, does socialism really work?

Yeah, it does. Just like capitalism. That works too.

"I heard a joke once. Man goes to doctor says "I'm terribly depressed". Doctor says "I know just what you should do. Poliacci the clown is in town, go see him, you'll be cheered right up." The man bursts into tears. "But Doctor, I am Poliacci." Funny joke. Roll on snare drum. Everyone laugh."

-Rorschach


[Image: BANANAMAN.gif]
08-03-2011 04:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Swift Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,316
Joined: Jan 2009
Thanks: 0
Given 9 thank(s) in 8 post(s)
Post: #222
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT Wrote:Weswammy does not know what socialism is or he just can't accept it, no wonder he is a capitalist, even though Swift or whoever clearly defines it.

True socialism is anarchy. The Lenninist state socialists killed anarchists in the Boleshevik revolution.

Socialism has been misrepresented by communism, and authoritarian socialist ( same thing different wordings).

Democratic socialism, Libertarian socialism, or social anarchism are basically what he's talking about and he's right. Socialism has been misrepresented by both capitalist countries and the soviets themselves during WWII. Americans called them socialist to make Americans fear socialism, and the Soviets called it socialism to make themselves look like the good guys, and so does North Korea, Cuba, etc.



Watch on YouTube

In a sense, you can't be a socialist without being an anarchist. The anarchist spirit of abandoning traditions and reforming institutions are essential things socialists must carry along in their programs.

The Bolshevik Revolution, as I stated in my previous post, was killed by Allied Intervention more than anything. Read Lenin's State and Revolution, it's surprisingly very libertarian.

I don't know if I'm a Leninist anymore, but honestly a lot of the information about Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyist movements has been corroded by history. The victor writes history, and capitalism eventually won the revolutions of the 20th century, though new ones are being forged in Nepal, India, Greece and Egypt today.

The framework of socialism I described basically can work within most tendencies of socialism.

Democratic socialism is a slippery term. It could literally mean democratic socialism(redundant), or social democracy, which is capitalism with a human face (Denmark is an example). Most of the time, it refers to social democracy.

"I heard a joke once. Man goes to doctor says "I'm terribly depressed". Doctor says "I know just what you should do. Poliacci the clown is in town, go see him, you'll be cheered right up." The man bursts into tears. "But Doctor, I am Poliacci." Funny joke. Roll on snare drum. Everyone laugh."

-Rorschach


[Image: BANANAMAN.gif]
08-03-2011 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Efs Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 3,981
Joined: Mar 2010
Thanks: 2
Given 101 thank(s) in 70 post(s)
Post: #223
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

I've given up. Too much fucking long posts. Since a picture says a thousand words, here it is:
[Image: capitalism3.jpg]
[Image: tumblr_lp6iiaoQcv1qg81iwo1_500.jpg]
[Image: 60876789-anticapitalism.jpg]

(01-10-2012 02:15 PM)Maelstrom Wrote:  Efs, your nihilism is beautiful.
08-03-2011 07:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #224
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

Swift Wrote:
Weswammy Wrote:Socialism is a system that has the economic apparatus in the hands of a government. It's not free, it's a central plan. It's the fatal conceit Hayek talked about, the stuff Mises wrote about in his Socialism. The idea that a government can gather all the knowledge that the price system gathers is patently absurd. How can it allocate scarce resources efficiently when it can't even run public schools effectively?

Socialism in the hands of a government? I'm okay with that. I'd rather have the economy in the hands of a government I have a voice in, rather than a market where my voice is more limited.
Understand that your choice in the market is less limited than with a government. You vote each day with your dollars on what to buy, you choose and somebody else chooses. You like one item, somebody else likes an item you hate. You both buy what you like and are on your way. Both of you win. And if there's an item that people want, an entrepreneur will ultimately be there to fill in the gap.

In contrast, the best one could hope for in a "one size fits all" socialist economy is that the majority gets what they want and the minority is left in the dust. Do you honestly think there will be more choice when entry into the market is limited by the government? France's government, for instance, tried to get into the computer business with the Minitel. Now they're dinosaurs!

[Image: magisclub.gif]

Quote:I'm not arguing for a Great Man version of history or for some bureaucrats to have 110% control of the state, did you miss the part where I said the economy is controlled by the majority of the population? You're making assumptions, but nice try.
Currently the economy is controlled by the consumers. The big companies and brands we see every day don't cater to the tastes of the rich. Wal-Mart and supermarkets aren't expensive specialty stores.

And you assume that majority control would, in practice, be any different from authoritarian means of control.

Quote:In socialism, the farmer and butcher can still cooperate. The small business of the farmer and butcher , at least in places like America who's socialism will develop in a more market socialist fashion because of the American consciousness and culture, will more likely still be able to exist. The farmer and butcher's interests could also be inputted in a local worker's council.
What about a large factory farmer? What about an industrial butcher? Do you honestly think it is moral to steal the property of other human beings?

So what if the farmer and butcher's interest is inputted in the local worker's council? Right now their interest is represented in the market, and more efficiently too. The market is inherently efficient, if worker's council's were more efficient they would be a large part of the market.

Quote:I'm not arguing for a zombie revival of the USSR and obviously there were many economic and social problems, but many of those problems were caused by civil war because of the unnecessary intervention of Czechoslovakia, Australia, Canada, the UK, Japan, the USA, Serbia, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Romania, AND the civil war caused by the loyalist White Russian movement. If Western powers had stayed out of Russia, Russian socialism would have been able to develop normally, without bureaucratic deformations or the polices of War Communism. Capitalism and Imperialism destroyed any cause of real socialism happening in Russia and the socialist revolutions in the 20th century following it.

So it's all the fault of the big bad capitalists and there's not one iota of blame on the economic system? Give me a break. It's not like they had a minor economic downturn. There were people starving in mass numbers.

Quote:You're saying this in a time where the gap between in the rich and poor in the US is at its biggest point in decades. I can get my socialist buddies over at another forum to dig up those statistics if you'd like.


Watch on YouTube

Quote:There's a reason why the poor don't raise themselves in poor countries, there's nothing to raise themselves on!
There's a reason the poor do raise themselves out of poverty in capitalist countries. There's freedom to buy, freedom to sell, freedom to try, and freedom to fail.

Quote:The USSR collapsed when it developed capitalist policies, though it never was really socialist as it is. But now thanks to the USSR's collapse, Russia has the birth rate of a third world country! I used to have a chart of these statistics comparing modern Russia vs. "Red" Russia, but the site removed it. I found the image on SS too.Here's the closest thing I could find, showing how Russia's quality of life has been since the collapse of the USSR and it ain't pretty.
http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/Russia
Russia's economic freedom is in the bottom half of all countries in the world. It's below such "juggernauts" as Haiti, Kenya, and Vietnam.

Quote:Why is the worker making shoes in a factory? Because he knows he will die without the salary he gains from it.
So, will people not work in your socialism? Mankind has had to work to feed himself since time immemorial.

Quote:But the materials the shoes are made of are cheaper than the shoe is sold for, the worker gets part of the profit from the shoe he produced.
Like I said, it takes risk to accumulate capital. The worker forgoes the risk in order for the safety and steadiness of the wage.

Quote:Look, capitalism has its placed in history. Capitalism has brought us many great things, the bourgeoisie, the class that caused the capitalist revolution, virtually invented human rights and invented industrial production.
Not only has capitalism brought us great things, it continues to bring us great things. Looks like you're trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Quote:Capitalism is a part of human history. But it will fade away. Every economic system will. Capitalism works. Feudalism worked. Slave societies worked. Pre-civilization worked.
None of those pre-capitalist societies worked as well as capitalism. None advanced like capitalism.

Quote:Socialism will work.
That remains to be seen.

Weswammy Wrote:Calling greed "self-interest" doesn't make it any better. Greed is not a virtue. Greed is a motivation and an obsession.


Watch on YouTube

Quote:Is theft legitimate because of it's a part of how capitalism works?
The free market is based on voluntary exchange, not theft. Don't give me that crap.

Quote:Is taking over countries and overthrowing leaders in the interests of corporations theft?
Yes, but that's not the free market. I have never been an advocate of the violation of rights. Capitalism isn't the collusion of corporations and government.

Quote:Good to know!
In capitalism each individual is able to take stock of his own situation and plan for himself. Each person is inherently limited by the situation he is in, but aren't we all?

Weswammy Wrote:I see nothing with this quote or really see anything that my post disagrees with. Capitalism formed the material conditions for socialism. And socialism will supersede capitalism.
Then let us have laissez-faire, and don't try to stop it.

Quote:If a major factor of socialism is left out like democratic control of means of production, it isn't socialism. Sorry.
"Socialism (pronounced /ˈsoʊ̯ʃəɫɪzm̩/) is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Last time I checked, publicly owned meant government owned.

Quote:India did not accept a form of socialism, if anything a social democracy. I'm not saying capitalism can't work. Capitalism works! It really does! But it will end.
India adopted policies restricting the market, and I would say it wasn't unlike a market based socialism that you seem so keen on wanting in America.

Quote:And any attempt to reform places like Africa like the Burkina Faso's administration of Marxist Thomas Sankara in the 1980's, which due his policies of collectivization made the country's food supply self-sufficient in just a matter of 3 years.
Quote:Explain how a country like Burkina Faso, having one of the world's lowest GDPs, can within not even half a decade, can become self sufficient in terms of food? Wheat production went from 1700 kg per hectare to 3800 kg per hectare. You know what happened? A socialist government came into power. And that wasn't even the direct result of the government! Sankara's government let the peasants handle the land.
At the current moment, Burkina Faso is in the top half of the world for economic freedom. Sounds real socialist to me.
And any country that still has peasants wasn't very capitalist to begin with, as can be seen here:

Other components of his national agenda included... doubling wheat production by redistributing land from feudal landlords to peasants,
Source.
I'm not against people owning their own farms, and when feudalism is overthrown the land should be given to the peasants that live on it. Feudalism is arguably a worse system than socialism, at least socialism states its goal is to help the majority of the people. Feudalism has no such pretensions.

And also:
Although Burkina Faso is not self-sufficient in food, agriculture in Burkina Faso has tremendous potential.
Source.

I would say that the potential would be unleashed by market liberalization.

Quote:Yeah, it does. Just like capitalism. That works too.
Then let's keep capitalism, buddy.

Efstratios Prime Wrote:I've given up. Too much fucking long posts. Since a picture says a thousand words,
[Image: CapitalismFist.jpg]

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
08-03-2011 11:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
John Tuttle Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 2,665
Joined: May 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 5 thank(s) in 5 post(s)
Post: #225
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

BaronVonStrangle Wrote:
John Tuttle Wrote:You clearly called anybody who agrees with Weswammy sheep. You have no brain so you call those who disagree with you sheep. Really, sheep? That is so uncreative. There are tons of animal analogies that don't make you look like the conspiracy theorist nutjob that you are. How about termites? They follow orders. Or ants for that matter. I don't care about your u-turn bullshit. I am calling you out on the use of the word sheep. Sheep.
Um, no I didn't. Is your rage such that it prevents you from being able to read or assemble a coherent thought? Are you seriously that mad over the use of the word sheep? Did sheep rape and then murder your entire family? Are you afraid of the sheepapocolypse? Is your patronus a sheep when you wanted it to be a stag? Are you actually a sheep with a human mind and thus standing up for all sheepkind?

As a matter of fact, sheep destroyed my village and drove out my family during the great shepherd wars of Illinois. They came at midnight, towing carts of gunpowder and petroleum. They pushed the parcels of powder in secret and used their coat as towels to spread gasoline across the streets and sidewalks and up the houses and businesses. They then retreated into the safety of the forests (washing the evidence off of their backs in a small stream) and set the town ablaze. It was the greatest fire in the entire history of the first half of the year 2006 in the western suburbs of Chicago. My companion parrot died in the flames.

Calling me a sheep is like calling a Jew a Nazi. Sheep are my sworn enemy. Whenever I have the opportunity to consume lamb and mutton I do. Whenever I have the opportunity to shoot a sheep through its skull I do. Sheep will pay for what they have done to me. I will not rest until all sheep and their sheep sympathizers are wiped off of the face of the planet. If this means the destruction of New Zealand through the use of nuclear weapons, so be it. If this means the use of biological warfare, so be it. It has to be done.

[Image: funny-gifs-wax-on-wax-owl.gif]
08-04-2011 05:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aaaaaaasd Offline
Grorious Moddu

Posts: 7,344
Joined: Oct 2007
Thanks: 1
Given 50 thank(s) in 38 post(s)
Post: #226
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

Sorry buddy but you're a little too late, this thread has actual debate now rather than wes steamrolling everyone
08-04-2011 05:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
John Tuttle Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 2,665
Joined: May 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 5 thank(s) in 5 post(s)
Post: #227
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

BaronVonStrangle Wrote:Sorry buddy but you're a little too late, this thread has actual debate now rather than wes steamrolling everyone
If you had half a brain cell you would realize that I stopped being serious a long time ago.

[Image: funny-gifs-wax-on-wax-owl.gif]
08-04-2011 05:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #228
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

BaronVonStrangle Wrote:Sorry buddy but you're a little too late, this thread has actual debate now rather than wes steamrolling everyone
I beg to differ. My steamroller is still on high.

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
08-04-2011 05:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aaaaaaasd Offline
Grorious Moddu

Posts: 7,344
Joined: Oct 2007
Thanks: 1
Given 50 thank(s) in 38 post(s)
Post: #229
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

John Tuttle Wrote:
BaronVonStrangle Wrote:Sorry buddy but you're a little too late, this thread has actual debate now rather than wes steamrolling everyone
If you had half a brain cell you would realize that I stopped being serious a long time ago.
No my point was that unsrs time is over now
08-04-2011 05:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Aya Offline
Banned

Posts: 2,712
Joined: Aug 2005
Thanks: 3
Given 45 thank(s) in 36 post(s)
Post: #230
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT Wrote:

Watch on YouTube

Lol fuck that guy.
08-04-2011 06:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
John Tuttle Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 2,665
Joined: May 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 5 thank(s) in 5 post(s)
Post: #231
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

BaronVonStrangle Wrote:No my point was that unsrs time is over now

Unsrs? Internet lingo has no place in serious debate.

[Image: funny-gifs-wax-on-wax-owl.gif]
08-04-2011 08:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #232
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

John Tuttle Wrote:
BaronVonStrangle Wrote:No my point was that unsrs time is over now

Unsrs? Internet lingo has no place in serious debate.
You mean srs debate.

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
08-04-2011 08:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Swift Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,316
Joined: Jan 2009
Thanks: 0
Given 9 thank(s) in 8 post(s)
Post: #233
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

I'm opening up an entire Microsoft Word document dedicated to a response to Weswammy, but for now here's a small answer:

Burkina Faso is no longer self-sufficient, once Sankara was assassinated and then Burkina Faso became an extremely economic inefficient nation once his reforms were reversed.

Sankara is no longer President of Burkina Faso, sadly. So modern day Burkina Faso cannot be used as an argument against his administration.

"I heard a joke once. Man goes to doctor says "I'm terribly depressed". Doctor says "I know just what you should do. Poliacci the clown is in town, go see him, you'll be cheered right up." The man bursts into tears. "But Doctor, I am Poliacci." Funny joke. Roll on snare drum. Everyone laugh."

-Rorschach


[Image: BANANAMAN.gif]
08-04-2011 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT Offline
Hi, I 'm anti-civ.

Posts: 775
Joined: Mar 2011
Thanks: 0
Given 9 thank(s) in 8 post(s)
Post: #234
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

I wanna join Elfrastrios.
Just because I wanted to get it out there.
[Image: my-daughters-a-libertarian.gif]

[Image: housepetsaslibertarians.png]

To be an anarchist, is to suffer greatly. To be a black woman is to suffer secretly. To be the earth, is to suffer silently.

I wish no harm on anyone, but those whose harmful ways will not stop without the same harm.

It's time we kill this cancerous system, before it kills us and everything left of gaia. Rise from our immaturity and take back our autonomy!

[Image: 2010-10-04-lost-my-appetite.jpg]
08-04-2011 01:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartofShadows Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,557
Joined: Dec 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 80 thank(s) in 73 post(s)
Post: #235
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT: Gotta admit the libertarian pets thing made me lol. Laugh

[Image: WARZONES_subs_hostility.png]
image hosting jpg
08-04-2011 01:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Swift Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 1,316
Joined: Jan 2009
Thanks: 0
Given 9 thank(s) in 8 post(s)
Post: #236
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

[Image: types_of_libertarian1.png]

"I heard a joke once. Man goes to doctor says "I'm terribly depressed". Doctor says "I know just what you should do. Poliacci the clown is in town, go see him, you'll be cheered right up." The man bursts into tears. "But Doctor, I am Poliacci." Funny joke. Roll on snare drum. Everyone laugh."

-Rorschach


[Image: BANANAMAN.gif]
08-04-2011 01:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartofShadows Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,557
Joined: Dec 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 80 thank(s) in 73 post(s)
Post: #237
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

Swift Wrote:
Hidden stuff:
[Image: types_of_libertarian1.png]

Now that was lulzy and it even had that guy who Shoves atlas shrugged in your face.

Saved!

[Image: WARZONES_subs_hostility.png]
image hosting jpg
08-04-2011 01:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #238
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

[Image: 24539_319546106375_133330211375_3701530_2239158_n.jpg]

[Image: ano0017l.jpg]

[Image: 8055cavejpg-550x0.jpg]

[Image: tumblr_li5xqwPxBG1qhehfho1_500.png]

[Image: 4782193639_05762d3ed7_o.jpg]

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
08-04-2011 10:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartofShadows Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,557
Joined: Dec 2006
Thanks: 0
Given 80 thank(s) in 73 post(s)
Post: #239
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

Like where this thread is going.

[Image: labor_history.png]
wordpress image hosting

[Image: WARZONES_subs_hostility.png]
image hosting jpg
08-04-2011 11:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #240
Re: Capitalism: The Debate

Hidden stuff:
[Image: 1258492011849.jpg]

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
08-05-2011 12:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  why capitalism is horrible HighSchoolFailure1337 46 20,903 06-12-2017 06:46 PM
Last Post: the Analogist
  Capitalism is the cause of prosperity thewake 9 6,412 01-06-2013 03:46 AM
Last Post: IamNoone
  Capitalism is the cause of world hunger. UnschoolShqiponjë 27 18,264 05-30-2012 02:26 PM
Last Post: thewake
  what is mutualism: alternative to social anarchism and capitalism iexist 0 1,758 03-01-2012 12:36 PM
Last Post: iexist
  Against INdustrial Capitalism/ Civilization (DEBATE) SH☮TGUNHEⒶRT 78 32,909 02-14-2012 02:44 PM
Last Post: Aya
  Corporatism Is Not Capitalism HeartofShadows 2 2,459 10-22-2011 02:45 PM
Last Post: gore goroth
  Capitalism is killing our planet. Swift 27 6,313 07-04-2010 09:05 AM
Last Post: Absnt
  Capitalism Fuels Fascism ~Mystery~ 125 17,497 06-03-2010 12:47 AM
Last Post: Denied
  Socialism/Capitalism (In a nutshell) Sociopath 22 13,752 03-13-2010 02:54 AM
Last Post: aaaaaaasd
  Capitalism Swift 27 8,940 02-27-2009 10:47 AM
Last Post: classclown

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | School Survival | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication