[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

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.

They're two different things. Sure a capalitist country will have laws promoting capitalism and a communist country will have laws promoting communism, but neither works very well if you have a leader who's skimming money of the top and letting the infrastructure rot. This is what's going on in South America and Africa. It would be going on either way.

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

I didn't say it was working, I said it was working better than communism. If you'll note, there are't exactly a lot of communist countries left, and those that remain are moving towards a free market. If communism works, why is this the case?

Communism failed everywhere it was attempted. This is an undeniable fact. Unless you can show why all these regimes failed and how to avoid it in a future communist regime, you will have to accept that communism doesn't work.

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.

The thing is, that's colonialism, not capitalism. Even if we were to attribute all of that to capitalism, there's nothing to suggest things wouldn't be worse under communism.

You can't just say capitalism is bad, therefore communism is better. Yes capitalism may be bad but communism has proven to be worse.

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.

I'm against farm subsidies too, however, you have to understand that such a thing is not capitalism. In fact subsidies go against the very nature of capitalism. In a pure capitalist economy everything would be driven by the market, and if you can't compete, too bad. Subsidies are a product of protectionism, where the domestic industry must be preserved even if it's uncompetitive.

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.

So because the economy collapsed due to an inability to adapt to changes, it's a bad example? Ok then how about East and West Germany? Once again we have a nation with a shared history until after world war 2. Once again we have the capitalist side doing better than the communist side. Of course East Germany was doing fine until it's economy collapsed too, wasn't it?

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

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.

So communism would work, it's just that no one's been able to get it right? You have to accept that some things that look great on paper fail when actually applied. Communism requires too much central control. It invites abuse. Eventually you will get a Stalin or a Mao under such a system, it's just a matter of time.

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.

True enough. However, it's not America's job to make sure kids in Africa have enough food. That's what they have governments for. If those governments fail to meet the needs of their people, there's nothing anyone else can do about it short of kicking them out and putting in someone who will. Even if the US were to annouce tomorrow that capitalism has failed and we're going communist it will do nothing to address those issues.

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.

Once again, that was colonialism, not capitalism. Let's not forget that the Soviets had a hand in shaping the current situation in Africa too. To attribute all the problems there to capitalism is either dishonest or ignorant.

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?

X is bad.
Y is not X.
Therefore Y is good.

That's basicly your arguement. However, it's flawed. The problem is Y has been tried and has proven to be worse than x. No one is going to dispute that capitalism has serious problems. However, supporters of communism refuse to acknowledge that it too has serious problems, which tend to be worse than those under capitalism.

Both systems have good points though. This is why a hybrid economy remains the best option. Of course there's always the risk of getting to worst of both rather than the best of both.

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.

No one is argueing capitalism is good. People are argueing that capilatism is better than socialism. History shows this to be largely true. If no one's gotten socialism to work, isn't that a good indicator that it doesn't work? Trying the same thing over and over while expecting different results is quite frankly a sign of insanity.

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.

Colonalism is not a feature unique to capitalism.

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.

Which is why there need to be some governemt controls. However, if you go too far you get government controlled media that would make fox news look like they're as fair and balanced as they claim to be.

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?

Television is misused, but to say it's garbage is missing the true potential of the medium. As an educational tool, it's potential can be rivaled only by the internet.

What about books though? The same arguement could be applied there. Except for text books and a few classic novels, it's all worthless trash that sacrifices millions of trees just to appease the ignorant masses.

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.

Considering the alternative has proven to be worse, yes the world is better off. However, one should remember that being better off doesn't mean things don't still suck. It only means they suck a bit less then they would otherwise.