Why capitalism?

Just because I support a free market and private property and am fully against communism doesn't mean I'm greedy or ignorant.

 

if you havent read the communist manifesto or das kapital, you have no reason to argue Marxism. You do not know what marxism is.
in fact, you will just look like a moron to those who have...
99.9% of people who will argue against marxism HAVE NEVER read Marxist philosophy and have NO IDEA What marxism even is!
The only reason these people argue against communism without KNOWING it... is because they feel they have to because they see themselves as capitalists... still that is no excuse to preach your own ignorance...

if you think you know marxism because they tought you it in school, your dead wrong... marxism would never be tought in school... the only way to learn it is to educate yourself on it by reading the philosophy... thats the only way.

Looking at the history psuedo-marxist and psuedo-communist countries like China, USSR, Korea, Vietnam, and cuba is NOT enough to claim to know the teachings of marx... they go far beyond these countries policies... these countries do not follow marx at all... and there is no way you can say that they do. i challenge anyone.

 

Haaa... I see Mui that you are riled up about Marxism. I agree with what you said. I read the Communist Manifesto and thought it was a nonsensical pamphlet for the most part. I don't see how all sociological patterns can be reduced to economics, much less how the political rhetoric of Marx can be called "scientific."

 

you probably couldnt get past the big words....

this coming from a self proclaimed racist... of course you thought Marx theory is shit... you are against equality. you hate becuase of race... i do not expect someone as idiotic as you to be able to fully grasp the extent of marxist philosophy.

Don't you have a klan meeting to attend? Or some niggers to lynch?

Go fuck yourself.

 

You sound very angry, Mui. Maybe you had some bad personal experiences?

 

Ye ive had bad personal experiences with Racist Fascists like you...

Nothing pisses me off more than a fucking racist who goes to the hippy forums to cause trouble...
Of course you piss me off, you piss the world off..

 

You should be a little more tolerant toward others, Mui.

I am a peaceful person, and by the way, some of the most racist comments I have heard have come from hippies who want nothing to do with fascists or Nazis because, well, all humans are prejudiced to an extent. Maybe you will see your own prejudices one day.

 

Shut the fuck up. I'll tolerate a capitalist, I wont tolerate a fascist or a racist. Choke on shit.

There is a difference between prejudice and racist you dumb fuck. Prejudice doesnt give you the go ahead to be a racist fuck. Just because you are extremely prejudiced does not mean everyone else is... Prejudice does not justify you... or racism..

and i already know what im prejudice against... racist, fascist, fuckheads like you.

 

Wow, Mui. I thought you were a smart girl, a little charged up because of her age, but I see you reek with some hypocrisy. Oh, well, the world will give you a good smack one of these days, so have fun bashing people online while the fun lasts.

This is what you wrote on another thread:

Maybe when you get into college a liberal arts degree will be very appealing, because should you get into business or economics you will be straightened out pretty quick by the latest theories that bear any semblance to science.

 

It's not hypocritical to be pissed at a racist like yourself... being an asshole to a racist is not being intolerant or hypocritical... you called yourself a racist, you have it coming to you.
And im not a girl.

And that quote I said is exactly true... there are working communes existant in the world which prove that communism HAS and can succeed.
My economics teacher sure had a hard time "straightening" me out, oh wait, she never changed me... instead we were friends... she thought i was intelligent... so whats that say about you?


I think you just jump to conclusions because you are a dumbass... but I dont blame you, you were probably born stupid. Surely no one takes the opinions of a blubbering racist idiot seriously.

 

OK, so someone offended you one day, and you decided to rebel by becoming a rabid Marxist who listens to Rage Against the Machine and lashes out knee-jerk against all forms of "racism." That's your story, huh?

Ha ha! You SOUND like a girl.

In very primitive, closely-knit communities it can succeed (although perhaps in a limited way, since humans are by nature avaricious), but in a modern, technological society? I don't think so. I doubt you would want "racists" sharing your dwelling or raiding your fridge. That's why there are property rights.

She probably thought your ideas were quaint, and that one day you would learn about the way the real world works.

 

LOL! Your a dumbass... more broad generalizations..
My beliefs didnt come from being "offended"... all that happened was... i was a kid just like anyone else, and Ive always been interested in history, one day I picked up The Communist Manifesto and read it, I was interested further in it, so I read more about it... and poof, here I am...

And I dont listen to Rage Against the Machine... although I do like their lyrics, they aren't talented when it comes to playing musical instruments... i like more musical music.

And you sound like a racist, fascist asshole who doesnt know shit.

Communist philosophy doesnt mention the scale at which it is to be used, it is just a philosophy, if you agree with its principles you are a follower of that philosophy, plain and simple... i think technology would only help a communist society as you can produce more with less work force, ship it faster, and generally be healthier...

I often stumpted her and I actually got her to start reading certain books... she had respect for me, but you are good at making illogical and wrong assumptions because that is what being a Racist is all about.

 

You are the perfect example of the tyranny of political correctness in our educational institutions. Not having had any alternative ideas, spewing your extreme left-wing rhetoric that made everyone (or almost everyone) pleased was enough to get you by. "Racist, racist, racist, racist!"

Except since commies don't respect property rights, innovators wouldn't have enough incentive to continue innovating, because their ideas would be taken up by others. You could have a few innovators who don't care for the money that comes with their work, or those who are true believers, but they would be in the minority. Failing to compete against other countries or populations embracing a free economy which brings greater economic growth, those living in the commune or forced to live in the commune (people are by nature individualistic to some degree) would feel a relative deprivation.

Think about it. Has the standard of living ever been as high as over the last 100 years? Who lives worse off, the middle class of today or kings who lived thousands of years ago? I'd say an argument can be made that kings of thousands of years ago did. Obviously something is being done right.

Countries that have not respected property rights have experienced major economic problems over the last century, while those respecting and upholding property rights have as a general rule thrived.

 

Trust me I do not represent "regular" thinking.

Your argument about individualistic nature I would disagree with, i think human nature died a long time ago, much longer than the advent of religion... i would say that human nature forms to the persons surroundings and environment... but there is no denying that in a capitalist society, the economy does grow much more... but this economic philosophy is intended for political and social rights, not economic growth as far as amassing wealth and things. It is not a materialistic philosophy so of course materialists would obviously not want to live in this society... I do not intend on forcing them to live in the society, either... nor do i agree with countries in the past who have.. If you want to commune, commune... to someone whos values did not represent materialism, it would not deprive them, but uplift them and make them happy... thats why some people choose to live in communes... and they are happy with them... I feel that if a majority of the countries populace wants to commune they should be able to...

In vietnam people were denied the right to commune... They were under a horrible capitalist ruler and the majority of people in the country wanted to commune. I feel they should have been allowed that right... but america sent troops in to stop "the spread of communism" killing hundreds of thousands. I feel that those who want to commune should live together in a larger communal society and those who dont should live together in their own..

Well the standard of living was worse back then because they did not have the technological achievments we had today... The king could have died from various illnesses and diseases... many kings did die from that... but not many... for most part they kept the castles clean but if the king were to journey out into peasent land they might catch somethin.
But nowndays we have computers... that just came incredibly recently.. which allows us to do a lot of things... possibilities are endless... and has allowed for a lot of medical advancements
These technologies are existant and can be put forth into any society, I would argue that it has more to do with the Accumulation of knowledge that humanity has shared as a whole.

Thats not entirely true. When the USSR changed from a psuedo-commie police state into a Capitalist state their economy actually did worse, and there was more famine... but generally it is true that capitalist nations do better at amassing large sums of money... no one would argue with you on that one. What they do is set society up in classes though... and the rich are generally insanely wealthy and the poor are incredibly poor... communal philosophy would be more per capita, though.

I didnt use the word r*cist once this time...

 

Untrue for two reasons. First of all, most important inventions and scientific discoveries were not made for profit at all. A mind with the ability to invent will do so, no matter what the gain. It is the need to make something new, and leave a mark on the world. And I say this because I am myself an inventive person (I made computer games, unique image and text generators, art and music) and also because I've read the writings of inventors. None of the important ones do it for the money. Even if they did, it is only because they were taught that money is important by the Capitalist society. If they were taught in Communist schools, they would understand the value of leaving your mark on the world in the form of invention.

The second reason is even simpler: look at an example. There were many wrongs in the Soviet Union, but lack of invention was not one of them. They were the first in space, developed many new weapons (not a benifit to the world, but an invention nontheless), and created many other things. And this does not only apply to science and industry, but also to art, music and writing. I don't think any man will ever write poetry like V. Vysotsky, who did so not for money (he didn't even publish his works) but for art.

We've had the industrial revolution. Now look at Africa. Are their children living like kings?

Just as Mui said, this is simply false. No need to say more.

 

OK, this is an interesting point, because I have come to see human behavior as malleable, whereas I used to be more deterministic. Human beings, unlike lower animals, have the capacity to use reason and learn and unlearn behaviors to a great degree.

However, let us suppose in a commune everyone is taught the ideals of communism and equality. Naturally, because of the social reinforcement, everyone is a communist. Now suppose one person rebels against the group. We will call him Neo-Socrates. Suppose Neo-Socrates is a capitalist who despises commie propaganda or social engineering. Let us suppose he is a skillfull debater. He may not even believe what he is saying, but he wants to stimulate new thinking. Because of his rhetorical skills, he draws a following of young people who rebel. Like the counterculture, they become a mass movement. Mass movements, as we know, can fundamentally change the values of a society. Just like a virus, capitalist ideas can thus spread in this commune, for good or bad, ultimately subverting it as people become "greedy" or self-centered. The only way to suppress these ideas would be by using force or totalitarian methods.

But... since this commune is not interested in money, it would lack the funds to build sophisticated weapons requiring billions in investment. Without weapons it would not be able to defend itself from the capitalist aggressors.

Such a commune could live, though, within a capitalist society as a small population within the larger society; but then, it would in a sense be parasitizing off the larger society, by depending on its protection. So, I do concede that on a small scale communism might work.

 

You may have a point about some notable inventors, but today a lot of the inventions require millions and even billions in research money. Communist countries are notoriously unable to raise funds as well as capitalist countries. Without private investors you have the state regulating things, and the state is notoriously inefficient. Bad workers are less likely to be weeded out, and there is the effect of less innovation. A system of corruption and cronyism is also more likely to develop.

Getting back to money and innovation, a pharmaceutical company may spend hundreds of millions of dollars to invent a new life-saving drug. This would be extremely difficult to do in a communist country.

Additionally, many inventors who write autobiographies are not likely to admit that they wanted money, fame or power (surely these must play a factor!).

 

I think its funny how people can argue for or against marxism. Don't you see that we should live in a society that who we are isn't based on how much our father's had and what our surname is. Hell, Bush JR. could've been elected president without any money. His prestigious name alone works. Besides, anyone who is on this board probably is in no state to argue the benefits of capitalism. What is the definition of capitalism? What are its goals? The goals of a capitalism is to concentrate wealth. If a society had 1 million people and everyone had 1 dollar, that would be an unsuccessful capitalism, but if 2 people had 750,000 dollars and everyone else had a quarter... it would be a very successful capitalism. So, if you're going to argue the merits of capitalism you better be in the position to say that you're in that highest concentration of wealth, because otherwise... you're just getting stiffed and I don't think anyone likes that. (Sidenote from tidbits: % 37 of the US population believes their in the top 1 percentile earnings-wise.)

 

This is completely false, it is something that leftists who have no understanding of capitalism say to each other because it sounds like what they want to hear.

Really? Prove it.

 

capitalism is all about economic growth... no denying that... if that is not true, what is the goals of capitalism?

canada lacks the military strength to properly defend themselves, and they arent under capitalist aggression... and that just shows that without capitalist aggression communism would work perfectly... i still think human nature conforms to its environment, and becuase many of us have grown up and lived in a capitalist society most of our lives, we cannot fathom living communalistically... but i would think that if someone were to raise kids in a commune their kids would have values other than those greedy self-serving interests many growing up in a capitalist society would have.