[bhamlaxy]

You're confusing the economic system with the government. Do you honestly believe if those same countries were communist the people would be better off? They'd still have the same corrupt regimes that don't invest in infrastructure and pocket the money earned in taxes. Thus the end result is the same for most people in those areas.

Generally the economic system and form of government are very similar, for example, laws in capitalist countries generally give very high importance to private property. I completely understand its an economic system, but the governments of capitalist countries are often the ones who cause the most harm, a violent extension of capitalism.

Your examples are evidence for more government oversight, but to say things would be better under communism is ignoring history. As I said before, a hybrid economy is the way to go.

To say capitalism is working ignores history, the current state of the world, and the hell hole we are headed towards.

Capitalism being responsible for all the poverty in the world? You're joking of course. A simple look at the former Soviet block will prove that incorrect. Better yet, drive through Seoul then drive through Pyongyang. Look at the difference communism and capitalism made after korea was divided following WWII. Granted some of that comes down to what i said about governments rather than economic systems, but you're taking 2 nations with a shared history until the forced seperation, and the results are evident for anyone to see.

Okay, you have a few examples. I think the most damning example to capitalism is well, all of Africa. Countries, with the endless need to extract resources, came in and chopped the country up, investing as little as possible into the economy while sucking out as many resources as possible, prohibiting growth and development. When they decide to leave, they draw up some nice borders, cutting up ethnic groups, placing enemies in the same state, leading to a bad history of political oppression, civil war, and genocide.

This continues today under the guise of the world bank, who seeks to integrate these economies into the world capitalist system, although all it does is force countries into insurmountable debt.

And don't get me started on US farm subsidies (government policy yes, but designed to increase profits for US farmers) and their effects on the rest of the world, especially Africa.

And North Korea after WWII? You are talking about the booming 2nd most industrialized country in Asia up until the 90's (screwed up because of the loss of the Soviet Union)? The loss of a trade partner, massive floods, and then years of drought forced Kim Jong Il to declare such harsh military rule. Bad representation of socialism.

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.

All false applications of communism/socialism. And sure, "progress" comes, along with huge environmental degradation, consumption of resources, military intervention, and human rights abuses.

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.

Communism and socialism say nothing about purification, mass murder, and destruction of ones own population. Some nut job leaders may do it, along with a socialist system, but they shouldn't be inextricably linked.

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?

Yep, most of it is disgusting and unnecessary. The amount of resources most of us Americans consume is disgusting. A good portion of the world is starving, but we still spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on fancy purses, exotic cars, and gigantic mansions.

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.

Capitalism seems to have worked so well at destroying a good portion of African countries, and creating a laundry list of problems for the US. And maybe Cuba wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the persisting embargo with the US.

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 don't understand, this proves why capitalism is bad. A rich ruling class that can inflict human rights abuses against a powerless working class?

? 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.

All bad applications of socialism. Just because no one has gotten it right yet doesn't mean capitalism is good. It's true, a lot of crazy, ruthless dictators like to give socialism a shot, and they fuck it up. And although I grew up in an extremely rich city, attend a damn good college, and live a pretty high standard of living, I'm far from being rich. My family walks a damn thin tight rope, and we barely make it happen.

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?

We don't use capitalism? Um, yea we do? And what does your argument about government corruption in other countries refer to? Capitalism has very far reaching implications, especially through colonialism. If you just look at the disgusting over consumptive mindset people have today, the endless drive for profit at the cost of literally anything (be it war, human rights violations, or the environment), and the disgusting state of American culture, capitalism really sucks ass.

Anyway, i wanted to make a point that your comment proves about the benefits of capitalism. How do you think my example is bad? OF COURSE televisions weren't as popular 50 years ago. The average worker had to work several weeks in order to afford one. They just weren't affordable to everyone so not as many people had them. However, because of capitalism and those suited old men who only wanted to turn a profit, televisions grew cheaper and the quality improved dramatically. The average american worker can afford a television on less than a days work and the vast improvement in quality and longevity is immeasurable. Who would invent the television under a communist system? Without self-interest as a driving force, what is the motivation to work hard and come up with this new invention? IF they are invented, would the government step up and realize "hey, this thing is a great invention, lets make millions of them and sell them really cheap. Not only that, lets work even harder and make the picture better, the unit smaller, and make them last longer. all the while keeping the prices low." The answer is no.

Why do you need television? To watch some good ol' glorified violence? Some classic exploitation and denigration of women? Sometimes, you have to think what the fuck are we watching? How has violence become such a positive message through the media on many levels? Because it is marketed and made for the sole reason of making a profit. If it's profitable, it gets done, regardless of morality.

TV's are unnecessary garbage, other than limited use like news and such. How much energy has to be consumed so we can waste our time getting indoctrinated with the same crap every night? How much oil or coal do we have to burn to power it all?

You cannot change human nature. Capitalism is the only system that embraces it and the world we live in today is better off because of it even when taking into effect the people burned by the abuses that some of us falsely attribute to it.

This shows how you only perceive the world through you're (American I presume?) lens. 10% of the world population holds 50% of the wealth. Hell, even in the US the bottom 40% of the population hold only 1% of the wealth.

So "the world is better off", when such a tiny percent hold a majority of the resources and money, while over 500 million people live in what is defined as "absolute poverty", 15 million children die a year of hunger, the worlds 358 billionaires have more money than the annual incomes of countries containing 40% of the worlds population.

So yea, it may have made your life nice and shiny, but not for a majority of the world. And god forbid they ever duplicate the US capitalist system. Then the environment is going to be fucked even faster.