[bhamlaxy]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

Do you think it is a good economic system or a bad one?

I think it is the cause of nearly all problems that face the world today, and switching from it is a do-or-die choice.

[OwL]

Any specific point you want to discuss? Because 'capitalism is bad' debate pretty much can lead to anything. I will rather have you leading this discussion to a specific point, certain aspect about capitalism.

[AidanRyuko]

I just want to say this about capitalism and economic systems..

People confuse economic system with government system. When Americans think of Communism, they think of an evil dictator that ruins everyone's lives. This is not true about communism as a whole. They are thinking of Totalitarianism, a government system where one person has total power.

Yes, Communism and Dictatorships work well with one another, but a Democratic Communism is possible, but no one has taken the time to think about why capitalism is bad.

Capitalism is a flawed system:

- Market prices are determined by a few guys is corporate offices
- Rich get richer, the poor get poorer
- Greed runs rampant
- Companies ruin the quality of food and other goods because the new method is cheaper to make.
- Job quality is determined by salary (ex. Get treated by a doctor not making as much money as the others, you get killed, basically.)
- Education is impossible (or near) for the poor, no hope of poverty-stricken families to advance.
- Healthcare is almost impossible to afford and is flawed (Due to companies caring more about profit than the quality of life)

The list goes on. But the reason America bashed communism, and even went to war with it, is because Communism & Socialism are better economic systems. They must show the American people & try to show the world that capitalism works. It doesn't.

Why is Communism/Socialism better? Because the greed is controlled. If a company wants to stay in business, they must make their products better. Not necessarily cheaper, but better. The government controls Healthcare, Education, Emergency Services, Infrastructure, and many high-priority industries. Communism takes it a step farther and only does not moderate small farmer's markets. Everything else is controlled and made available to everyone equally.

The misconception people have in their minds is that capitalism stands for freedom. It doesn't. Capitalism DOES mean that you can start your own business from nothing, and have little or no intervention from the government. However, Socialism allows small businesses to run just as freely! Also, Communism has subsystems that allow Small businesses to run with little or no moderation.

Bottom line is that Capitalism IS a flawed system, and it will be one of the main reasons America will end up like Rome. Fallen.

[Fipherion]

The driving force of capitalism is self interest, and as such, it is the economic system best fitted to our human nature. Call it greed if you want. That wouldn't be innacurate but self interest and capitalism leads to competition. Competition leads to innovation, increased efficiency, and lower prices. You're telling me that communism is better? Ask the citizens of the former soviet republics what they think about that. Socialism is less extreme and has its merits but what I don't like about it is monopolizing certain industries and eliminating the posibility of competition.

The problems with america's health system is not capitalism's fault. The american health system is actually very similar to a socialist system except that insurance companies pay the bills instead of government. About 90% of America's medical bills are not paid out of pocket by the consumers. This fact practically eliminates all competitive forces of the marketplace. It is infinitely easier to spend someone elses money so consumers have little motivation to shop around and medical providers have little motivation to compete. Transfering the burden of paying medical bills from insurance companies to the government is only changing the situation, not improving it.

One medical industry that most insurance plans will not pay for is laser eye surgery. Since customers must pay out of pocket for this procedure, they are more apt to use their dollar more wisely. This introduced competition into the industry and competing surgeons were forced to lower prices and improve quality in order to attract customers. The improvements in laser eye surgery over its relatively short lifetime have been phenomenal and it is much cheaper and of better quality than ever before. This is what competition does to an industry.

America's problem is not capitalism itself but how america's economy has strayed from capitalism. Capitalism isn't anarchy. The government should play a role in ensuring fair competition and practices but i believe that should be its limit.

Now, i think i'll address your bullet points:
1. "Market prices are determined by a few guys in corporate offices."
If you mean that they decide what price to print on the labels of their products then you are correct but do you know who tells them what price to print? Consumers. If a price is too high, the product won't sell. If a price is too low, there will be a shortage and profits will not be as high as they could be. It is in the "guys in corporate offices" self interest to price their products where they should be.

2. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.
This "bumber sticker slogan" is very popular but its simply untrue. Under capitalism, consumer goods have become more affordable. Do you know that the average "poor household" today has 2 televisions? How many poor people 50 years ago could afford even one? It may be true that the gap between the richest and the poorest has grown. I'll give you that, but you cannot say that poor people have gotten poorer.

3. Greed runs rampant
I think i addressed this well enough earlier. It is in the self interest of consumers to make the best use of their money. It is in the self interest of businesses to compete for these consumer's dollars. The result is innovation and lower prices.

4. Companies ruin the quality of food and other goods because the new method is cheaper to make.
Nobody forces you to buy cheaper food. If you like more expensive, higher quality items, then by all means spend your money on that. Under capitalism you have the choice to spend your money however you want. Is it right to force everyone to buy the products you want them to? If the quality of a food suffered so much that consumers wouldn't buy it anymore than the the business won't make money.

5. Job quality is determined by salary (ex. Get treated by a doctor not making as much money as others, you get killed, basically)
Despite the utter absurdity of your example, I still left it in. Are you suggesting that paying the bad doctor as much as the others will improve his skills? Are you saying that reducing the pay of the good doctors will improve the bad doctors skills? I really don't understand your point. Wage competition forces people to work hard to earn what they want. If you aren't making what you want to make, you have to work hard and earn the higher pay. If the government gives equal pay for unequal work, there is absolutely no motivation to improve.

6. Education is impossible (or near) for the poor, no hope of poverty-stricken families to advance.
This is actually one aspect of pure capitalism that agree with. I do believe that government should play a role in guarenteeing all its citizens a free education. It has been proven by several studies that free education (up to highschool) improves the standard of living of all citizens as a whole. However, the government should do nothing to prevent a family from educating their children however they choose. Families that want to pay for private education should be allowed to do so if they feel that public education is not right for them. Parents that want to homeschool should also be allowed to.

7. Healthcare is almost impossible to afford and is flawed (due to companies caring more about profit than the quality of life)
I discussed this earlier but i'll sum up my thoughts here. The problem with healthcare is not capitalism. In fact, more capitalistic features would HELP the situation. The fact of the matter is that healthcare is too expensive. It is too expensive because there is little motivation to compete. If insurance was restructured so that consumers paid for all their medical expenses out of pocket (high deductible), except for those expenses in the catastrphic case which would financially ruin and individual, insurance would be DRAMATICALLY cheaper and the medical industry would be forced to compete and innovate. Prices would fall and quality would improve.

[OwL]

Capitalism itself is not meant to promote equality, but efficiency.
As the last poster said, efficiency leads to competition, innovation and development.

Communism have a problem with incentives. What's the point on doing things better if you're going to get the same as someone who didn't?

You can call it fair in the way that under capitalism, supposedly, you gain the benefits of your own effort. If you didn't put enough effort, then you won't have the same benefits as someone who did.

However, here comes the poor people. Say the born poor people start at -10 and a born middle classer starts at 0. The poor one would have to make much more effort to get the same as the middle classer.

And now let's talk about the born rich ones, they start at like +20. Ok, their parents did an effort before and they want their childs to enjoy of their success. Ok, I'll give you that. But, what happens to poor people who starts at -10? A central authority such as the government should provide them support in other to start at 0 as a middle classer.

Also, there are another aspects as education and health that are a must for the government. The government participating in the economy is a must to control abuses and organize the country's activities.

I think you should blame neoliberalism which basically states the government should have less participation in the economy, so the market flows better and the system becomes more efficient. If you weaken this economy controller, then companies abuses are more likely to happen. And, if you decrease this asistance to poor people from the government, then of course the gap between poor people and rich people increases.

What's causing nearly all the problems in the world is neoliberalism, not capitalism.

[ashen171]

well that depends, are you talking about the real capitalism or capitalistic aristocracy?

Originally Posted by OwL

Capitalism itself is not meant to promote equality, but efficiency.
As the last poster said, efficiency leads to competition, innovation and development.

Communism have a problem with incentives. What's the point on doing things better if you're going to get the same as someone who didn't?

You can call it fair in the way that under capitalism, supposedly, you gain the benefits of your own effort. If you didn't put enough effort, then you won't have the same benefits as someone who did.

However, here comes the poor people. Say the born poor people start at -10 and a born middle classer starts at 0. The poor one would have to make much more effort to get the same as the middle classer.

And now let's talk about the born rich ones, they start at like +20. Ok, their parents did an effort before and they want their childs to enjoy of their success. Ok, I'll give you that. But, what happens to poor people who starts at -10? A central authority such as the government should provide them support in other to start at 0 as a middle classer.

Also, there are another aspects as education and health that are a must for the government. The government participating in the economy is a must to control abuses and organize the country's activities.

I think you should blame neoliberalism which basically states the government should have less participation in the economy, so the market flows better and the system becomes more efficient. If you weaken this economy controller, then companies abuses are more likely to happen. And, if you decrease this asistance to poor people from the government, then of course the gap between poor people and rich people increases.

What's causing nearly all the problems in the world is neoliberalism, not capitalism.

frankly, capitalism's approval is based on one's political party; a republicain would be far more likely to approve capitalism than a democrat just based on the political beliefs of the parties

[bhamlaxy]

You're telling me that communism is better? Ask the citizens of the former soviet republics what they think about that.

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.

2. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.
This "bumber sticker slogan" is very popular but its simply untrue. Under capitalism, consumer goods have become more affordable. Do you know that the average "poor household" today has 2 televisions? How many poor people 50 years ago could afford even one? It may be true that the gap between the richest and the poorest has grown. I'll give you that, but you cannot say that poor people have gotten poorer.

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.

You're example is pretty bad. 50 years ago, televisions weren't as popular, were more expensive (with inflation taken into account), and the technology wasn't as widespread.

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.

3. Greed runs rampant
I think i addressed this well enough earlier. It is in the self interest of consumers to make the best use of their money. It is in the self interest of businesses to compete for these consumer's dollars. The result is innovation and lower prices.

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.

Capitalism itself is not meant to promote equality, but efficiency.
As the last poster said, efficiency leads to competition, innovation and development.

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.

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.

[Fipherion]

I think that many of the issues with poverty that you are citing are a result of incompetent/corrupt politicians, leaders, and businessmen who have exploited their people and their capitalist economies. Thats not to say that capitalism is bad though. There is a major role for government in capitalism. That is to ensure that the system runs smoothely and it has failed in the situations that you describe. Just as you cannot fault communism for the actions of its totalitarian leaders, you cannot fault capitalism for the actions of the individuals and governments who have failed to ensure that it is run correctly. I think you may be misplacing your dissatisfaction onto capitalism when it belongs elsewhere.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by AidanRyuko

I just want to say this about capitalism and economic systems..

People confuse economic system with government system. When Americans think of Communism, they think of an evil dictator that ruins everyone's lives. This is not true about communism as a whole. They are thinking of Totalitarianism, a government system where one person has total power.

Yes, Communism and Dictatorships work well with one another, but a Democratic Communism is possible, but no one has taken the time to think about why capitalism is bad.

Capitalism is a flawed system:

- Market prices are determined by a few guys is corporate offices
- Rich get richer, the poor get poorer
- Greed runs rampant
- Companies ruin the quality of food and other goods because the new method is cheaper to make.
- Job quality is determined by salary (ex. Get treated by a doctor not making as much money as the others, you get killed, basically.)
- Education is impossible (or near) for the poor, no hope of poverty-stricken families to advance.
- Healthcare is almost impossible to afford and is flawed (Due to companies caring more about profit than the quality of life)

The list goes on. But the reason America bashed communism, and even went to war with it, is because Communism & Socialism are better economic systems. They must show the American people & try to show the world that capitalism works. It doesn't.

Why is Communism/Socialism better? Because the greed is controlled. If a company wants to stay in business, they must make their products better. Not necessarily cheaper, but better. The government controls Healthcare, Education, Emergency Services, Infrastructure, and many high-priority industries. Communism takes it a step farther and only does not moderate small farmer's markets. Everything else is controlled and made available to everyone equally.

The misconception people have in their minds is that capitalism stands for freedom. It doesn't. Capitalism DOES mean that you can start your own business from nothing, and have little or no intervention from the government. However, Socialism allows small businesses to run just as freely! Also, Communism has subsystems that allow Small businesses to run with little or no moderation.

Bottom line is that Capitalism IS a flawed system, and it will be one of the main reasons America will end up like Rome. Fallen.

Yes capitalism is a flawed system. It invites corruption and exploitation. However, it's a lot better than socialism. Too much centralized control negatively effects productivity and enivitably leads to a collapse of the economy. Not to mention socialism doesn't completely elimiante the corruption and exploitaion factors either. There is a reason nearly every socialist country has either collapsed or incorporated many aspects of capitalism, if not completely switched.

The ideal would be a hybrid economy where businesses are allowed pretty much free reign to do as the please, but with government control to ensure they dont' do anything to exploit the population. If you were to take the current economic system of the US and nudge it a bit more towards socialism, you'd have a good start. Pure capitalism doesn't work well, and pure socialism doesn't work at all. A hybrid system is the key to a successful and long lasting economy.

Also the US will eventually fall regardless of its economic system. All governments do eventually fall, though that doesn't mean the country itself will. Look at China. It's government has been overthrown countless times over the centuries, yet it still has much of the same land it did when it was first unified. Realisticly speaking there would need to be a sense of nationalism in the various regions for a nation to split up. As long as american people see themselves as americans first and New yorkers, Virginians, Texans, or Californians second there's not much chance of the country splitting apart even if the government does collapse.

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.


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.

You're example is pretty bad. 50 years ago, televisions weren't as popular, were more expensive (with inflation taken into account), and the technology wasn't as widespread.

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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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?

[Fipherion]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

You're example is pretty bad. 50 years ago, televisions weren't as popular, were more expensive (with inflation taken into account), and the technology wasn't as widespread.

(note: i wish i knew better about quoting)

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.

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.

[Moshineko]

Fipherion: Completely off topic, but for quoting; Easiest way is to Quote the whole passage, erase the [quote] tags at the beginning and end, then select certain portions, and hit the "Quote" button, which will define those areas as seperate quotes. Alternately, you can set up quotes by using the HTML tags, which are written [ "command" ] [ / "command" ] (no spaces) . In this case, Quote would go in place of "command" so, [quote] opens a quote, and the same, with a / in front of the command word, closes a quote. (can't show the actual tags, it'll just come up as a quote. XD )

[hazelmurphy]

I've tried and tried several times to post a response here, but every time it comes out as a 20 page wall of text . . . and I just don't want to do that.

I'll put it as concisely as I can.

For the most part, I agree with Moshi. Not entirely, but for the vast majority of what he is saying. Now I do my damndest to ignore this thread.

[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.

Pers