Why capitalism?

Almost every country in this world are capitalist. Most countries in the world are dictatorships.

 

I agree.

 

Why do you consider these totally exclusive? He obviously supports the capitalist system. Just look at his policies.

I agree with you.

 

I'm gonna say it again, why capitalism? Because it works!

 

I can't understand why someone would say Bush is a socialist. He is the last person that could be called socialist.







He doesn't want equality, he wants rich and poor, luxury and poverty, the exploiter and the exploited. Socialists do not want this. Go ahead and ask them.


And look at his foreign policy. He wants to take control over every country in the world and remove their independence. Socialists are totally against that, and they are anti-imperialists.





Also, could you please give us a definition of socialism, AND communism?

Does it work in Somalia?

 

Capitalism is perfect for a growth economy, but from the early 21st century onwards we will need to replace it with a steady state (no growth) system based on much more economic localisation. It may still be a simplistic capitalist system I will give you that but it will have to be without economic growth, as growth means consuming more and more etc.

 

Does capitalism work in Russia, Mexico, Brazil, Sudan, Somalia, Burkina Faso or in the Congo?

Can you tell us why socialism did not work in the Soviet Union (regarding economic development, healthcare, education, etc).

 

You need to get it through you're head there is a diference between an economic system and a government system, the same type of government can have different economic systems.

 

Have I said otherwise?

 

Yes, you keep saying anarachy and communism are the same thing, they're not, they share some common goals, but anarchy is more a political system(well, killing of the political system acutally) and communism is an economic system.

 

No, it doesn't kill the political system, other then that in anarchism there will be democratic elections in the communes, just like in communism.



The notion that anarchism is all about "kiling the state" is simply fabrication or just widespread misinterpretation, just like people think it is communism in Cuba.

 

Anarachy's goal is to get rid of the state, there wouldn't be any fucking elections in anarchy because there'd be no government to elect.

 

No anarchy's goal (I hope we are both talking about the same thing: Anarchism), is the same as communists, although there is a difference in the belief on how to get there.


I've read a lot of books on both anarchist and marxist theory, I should know.

Ever heard of direct democracy?

 

wow wow wow.

Are you joking?

 

IF capitalist countries modernize enough to use the oil they have left to create alternative energy. The fact that most capitalist countries aren't following northern Europe's example on this fuels the argument that capitalism is the problem not the cure.

I was reading how much the oil embargo effected cities. If we have another oil crisis before alternative energy is developed to transport food, there will be massive food shortages in the cities. This will effect even the US, in fact, there are already food shortages in some local food banks.

I'm not advocating communism, I just believe how capitalism is manifested in the US under Bush is the best advertisment for communism there is. That probably explains why socialism and communism is spreading around the world.

 

The goal of anarchy is not the same as comunism, for the last time, communism is both a political and economic system, anarchy is just a political system, look at Somalia, it's anarchy there, but it's probably the most capitalistic place on earth. And yes I've heard of direct democracy, but in anarchy there'd be no elections or direct elections because there would be no government to elect!

 

We haven't found a suitable replacement for it, that's my take on the subject.

 

Why capitalism? Let's take a look at Communism shall we?
Communism is a brutal, stupid system of government invented for an ignorant and lazy peasant class who are jealous of hard-working men who rose from their own ranks to make something of themselves, wherein no one owns anything of their own, but all share in the wealth of the nation equally—a completely impracticable idea, because someone has to be in charge, someone is always going to have more than someone else, and that is not a flaw in human nature, or a lack of commitment to the Communist ideal, there is a flaw in the very concept of sharing equally. The fact of nature is that no two beings are created equal, there must always be a peasant class, a place for the stupid and undisciplined to bide their time on this earth doing the bidding of others. And there must always be the ruling class, men of industry, of foresight who would never be satisfied in sharing everything equally, for that would give no impetus to his social inferiors to ever actively improve their positions.
Do you know why Communism was squashed so rightly? The rest of the world toppled the Communists through economics.
Long live Capitalism.

 

Than why not take the money that comes to an individual through some fortunate means like inheritance or lottery winning?

I certainly understand why one can not take away from a person who has earned by hard work and intelligence, but those who have inherited millions and millions of dollars (Paris Hilton), by that notion, should have no right to the money.

Should not these people have the duty to distribute their fortunate fortunes amoung the masses in the name of the betterment of mankind?

 

Because just like all other aspects of socialism, that destroys the incentive to work hard. If I can't do what I want with my money (such as give it to my heirs or throw it away on lottery tickets), then there is less reason for me to try to earn it at all.

No, they have no such duty. It'd be a NICE thing for them to do, but they aren't required to do so.

You are almost certainly "rich" by global standards, given the fact that you own a computer. Do you think that YOU should not be allowed to benefit from your parents' wealth, if that is their wish? If you think that you're entitled to that money, please explain to me the distinction between you and Paris Hilton.