[Moshineko]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

How about you ask the southern half of the world how they like the global capitalist system? Or the millions of impoverished people living in capitalist countries? Believe me, there are a HELL of a lot more people who have been negatively affected by capitalism than those who have been negatively affected by communism.

Well, this is like saying that more people in the Bahamas have died of heatstroke than have died of frostbite. The fact is there have been a HELL of a lot more captialist systems then there have been communist systems. Even the communist systems you have had have been less communist than totalitarian posing as communist, as our "capitalist" systems have become more and more socialist over time.

Yuck. You are looking at capitalism at such a localized level. The global south has gotten nothing but poorer under capitalism. They have had their resources and capital sucked out of the country, low worker rights in order to maximize profit margin, and wars fought just to gain capital.

This of course not necessarily owing to the capitalism of surrounding countries. Haiti is poor as France (socialist) took a cripplingly high fee in order to recognize Haiti's independence. Venezuala (socialist) is becoming increasingly unable to manage its considerable resources due to incompetence and civil disobedience. India (capitalist) is wealthy, but unable to manage its resources due to a corrupt beauraucracy. Individual countries in Africa (Cote d'Ivore, for example), again, have considerable wealth, but labor under totalitarian regimes and suffer from internal disputes. China is doing quite well in total, suffering from "growing pangs" fairly common to nations undergoing industrialization.

The suffering you rail against is not caused by a system, but by ignorance and lack of power in the populations of these countries. This can be seen in several Eastern European countries as well.

And you make a big concession- the gap between the rich and poor is growing. Since you argue that the poor aren't getting poorer, that means that the rich are getting richer. Continue this cycle going, and you have an extremely small social elite ruling over a vast majority of poor people. Sounds like fun.

Sounds like communism, actually, as it has been implemented. USSR- small oligarcy ruling over vast amounts of poverty-stricken, eating up its smaller neighbors and crippling them so that even now many of them (Tajikistan, Chechneya, etc.), are still unable to feed even half of their people.
China- "The Party" rules its people with an iron fist, determining their every move, destroying the lives of the agricultural class. Tibet and Taiwan are ruled as servant states, unable to even declare they have an individual culture. Progress comes when (sruprise, surprise) communist ideals are loosened in favor of a more capitalist outlook.

And absolute environmental destruction, wars, and the widening of the rich-poor gap. Greed doesn't lead to lower prices, it leads to doing whatever it takes to make prices higher, and there are dozens of examples of this, from the artificial energy shortages Enron created in California, to the Debeers diamond cartel.

Which of course doesn't happen in events like the Communist Revolution in China, when the Chinese communist govenrment did such a great job "purifying" itself. Or during the Krondstadt revolution in the USSR, when those with unpopular views were again "purified". Yup, it's all communism's fault.

I disagree. The purpose of capitalism is to acquire capital. It is far from efficient. Capitalism is all about the commodification of goods. Capitalism wastes so much time, money, and natural resources on things that are unnecessary. Businesses produce goods based on how much money they can make off it, not the use of the item.

In which case I'll be happy to accept your "unnecessary" goods. Such as your computer, car, all but one or two sets of clothing, your snacks, furniture, 90% of your house, your hair products, most of your hygeine products, all but one pair of shoes, pens, pencils, paper, your books, your games, any knick-knacks and toys you have hanging around, your TV, your radio, long-distance phone services, and, hell, the list is too long. Tell you what, you tell me what's "necessary", okay?

Or maybe you don't like living in a subsitence culture? Hmmm. Well, you did say that so much of what capitalism produces is unnecessary, so I'm sure we'll all be happy to give up our personal property for the good of the State. After all, it's worked so well in Cuba, Russia, and... oh wait, no, it didn't.

Personal property= personal rights. It's no surprise that human rights abuses happen more frequently in countries with a poor distribution of wealth, as you can't fight when you can't eat. The more unnecessary objects you have, the better you're able to fight for them.

I think there are a few damning arguments that have to be addressed. I believe capitalism is responsible for a huge amount of ecological destruction, a majority of war, and all of the poverty in the world.

? Which is why, again, Cuba, Venezula, Russia, and so many other non-capitalist countries are doing so well? Please come back with something I didn't hear from Thoreau, or other, rich people who've never actually had to be poor. Your arguments look fabulous as long as we don't look for any reasoning or evidence in them. You're arguing that an economic program we don't even really use is responsible for government corruption in countries that deny its use?