CDZ What is Capitalism

[TNHarley]

\

The Marxist-Leninist doctrine advocating revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and establish adictatorship of the proletariat that will eventually evolve into a perfectly egalitarian and communal society."
Do you know what a proletariat is?
Like I said earlier, google "withering away of the state"

How can you wither away a state if its not there as you claimed?

omg... PUREST FORM

In its purest form of communism the government or "state" owns everything. There has never been a stateless society in the history of the world.

There hasnt been a communist society either.
There is no state. The proletarians take over the "state" which will wither away. Read some of Marx and engels work and try to actually understand what you are talking about

I guess you, Marx, and Engels, didnt realize that the proletarians taking over the state doesnt make the state disappear. It just makes them in charge of the state.

For gawd sakes, will you google what that concept is? You OBVIOUSLY don't have a clue. Are you against self improvement or something? lol

 

[Asclepias]

\

How can you wither away a state if its not there as you claimed?

omg... PUREST FORM

In its purest form of communism the government or "state" owns everything. There has never been a stateless society in the history of the world.

There hasnt been a communist society either.
There is no state. The proletarians take over the "state" which will wither away. Read some of Marx and engels work and try to actually understand what you are talking about

I guess you, Marx, and Engels, didnt realize that the proletarians taking over the state doesnt make the state disappear. It just makes them in charge of the state.

For gawd sakes, will you google what that concept is? You OBVIOUSLY don't have a clue. Are you against self improvement or something? lol

You dont have to get stressed and start breaking the rules of the CDZ. Its pretty simple. There has never been a stateless society and just because someone takes over the state that doesnt mean it disappears. The only thing that changes is the people in charge of the state. Use your critical thinking skills.

 

[TNHarley]

\

omg... PUREST FORM

In its purest form of communism the government or "state" owns everything. There has never been a stateless society in the history of the world.

There hasnt been a communist society either.
There is no state. The proletarians take over the "state" which will wither away. Read some of Marx and engels work and try to actually understand what you are talking about

I guess you, Marx, and Engels, didnt realize that the proletarians taking over the state doesnt make the state disappear. It just makes them in charge of the state.

For gawd sakes, will you google what that concept is? You OBVIOUSLY don't have a clue. Are you against self improvement or something? lol

You dont have to get stressed and start breaking the rules of the CDZ. Its pretty simple. There has never been a stateless society and just because someone takes over the state that doesnt mean it disappears. The only thing that changes is the people in charge of the state. Use your critical thinking skills.

I already said I don't think communism is plausible. I am just arguing the actual concept of it. Purest form of communism is stateless. LIKE YOU SAID, the laborers take over the "state" and it will slowly disappear. Read part b of your post, then look up "withering way of the state". I am not discussing something with someone that refuses to learn.

 

[Asclepias]

\

In its purest form of communism the government or "state" owns everything. There has never been a stateless society in the history of the world.

There hasnt been a communist society either.
There is no state. The proletarians take over the "state" which will wither away. Read some of Marx and engels work and try to actually understand what you are talking about

I guess you, Marx, and Engels, didnt realize that the proletarians taking over the state doesnt make the state disappear. It just makes them in charge of the state.

For gawd sakes, will you google what that concept is? You OBVIOUSLY don't have a clue. Are you against self improvement or something? lol

You dont have to get stressed and start breaking the rules of the CDZ. Its pretty simple. There has never been a stateless society and just because someone takes over the state that doesnt mean it disappears. The only thing that changes is the people in charge of the state. Use your critical thinking skills.

I already said I don't think communism is plausible. I am just arguing the actual concept of it. Purest form of communism is stateless. LIKE YOU SAID, the laborers take over the "state" and it will slowly disappear. Read part b of your post, then look up "withering way of the state". I am not discussing something with someone that refuses to learn.

I didnt say it will slowly disappear. You said that. I just pointed out the logical fallacy inherent in that belief.

 

[2aguy]

As far as I can tell, it is a political system in which highly gifted commoners can, with a lot of hard work, AND a bit of luck, attain equality before the law with those who were born into privilege.

Did I forget anything essential?

I mean sure, some may want to invoke whimsical terms like "free market" and "merit based," but lets try to stick with what has actually ever existed in reality.

It is simply the free exchange of goods and services between individuals and groups without interference from the government.

 

[2aguy]

Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"apitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.[4][5] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment is determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, and prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market"


Glad to help.

It's a nice theory. History shows it to be as impracticable as it's "opposite" --communism.

We've been largely capitalistic for a while, and it's been quite practical, more than practical, beneficial. Or is our propensity for Nobel prizes just a fluke

American Leadership in Science, Measured in Nobel Prizes [Infographic]

Sorry world that our capitalism has raised the standard of living for all of you, and fed the globe. But I guess it isn't practical, because there are big corps not playing by the rules because our politicians let them. But blame the baby, not the bath water.

The government picking corporations to support or hurt is the problem with crony socialism......the government should only be the unbiased referee......called in only when there is a question of law breaking....

 

[Agit8r]

As far as I can tell, it is a political system in which highly gifted commoners can, with a lot of hard work, AND a bit of luck, attain equality before the law with those who were born into privilege.

Did I forget anything essential?

I mean sure, some may want to invoke whimsical terms like "free market" and "merit based," but lets try to stick with what has actually ever existed in reality.

It is simply the free exchange of goods and services between individuals and groups without interference from the government.

Never has been, but thanks for your input.

Agorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TNHarley]

\

There hasnt been a communist society either.
There is no state. The proletarians take over the "state" which will wither away. Read some of Marx and engels work and try to actually understand what you are talking about

I guess you, Marx, and Engels, didnt realize that the proletarians taking over the state doesnt make the state disappear. It just makes them in charge of the state.

For gawd sakes, will you google what that concept is? You OBVIOUSLY don't have a clue. Are you against self improvement or something? lol

You dont have to get stressed and start breaking the rules of the CDZ. Its pretty simple. There has never been a stateless society and just because someone takes over the state that doesnt mean it disappears. The only thing that changes is the people in charge of the state. Use your critical thinking skills.

I already said I don't think communism is plausible. I am just arguing the actual concept of it. Purest form of communism is stateless. LIKE YOU SAID, the laborers take over the "state" and it will slowly disappear. Read part b of your post, then look up "withering way of the state". I am not discussing something with someone that refuses to learn.

I didnt say it will slowly disappear. You said that. I just pointed out the logical fallacy inherent in that belief.

Idc about the fallacy of it. 98% of the concept is a fallacy in todays world.
And yes, lol, I just meant the "LIKE YOU SAID, the laborers take over the "state"" sorry

 

[320 Years of History]

A mixture of capitalism and communism is the way to go.

Well, that would be called China, at least to the extent China can rightly be seen as still aiming to arrive at communism.

Mind you, if you spend much time in China, you'll find there's a lot to like about it. I can't say much about the political process there, but living there is quite a pleasurable experience, at least I find it so. I say that only to note that living under/in an environment like one of China's enterprise zones.

And China is the modern day form of slavery.

I am in the PRC weekly. I have multiple clients there, and I've been to their factories, their "company towns," the big cities, etc. I have a translator who accompanies most of the time. I have had numerous conversations about working conditions in the PRC. I can assure you that what they have going on, though in some places dissimilar to what we observe in the U.S. is not at all slavery of any type. So, please, let's dispense with the inflammatory/morality metaphors, or at the very least, I ask that you reserve them for your discourse with other members.

I say that because china can manipulate it's currency on a whim. It shuts out any discourse with the government online. It throws people in prison for displaying a cross. You are not allowed to have an individual published idea. It gives the people just enough to stop them from rioting, and displays a large enough police state to further discourage that. They are very effective at displaying the carrot and stick. It may not be real slavery like we see in the Middle East, but those people are far from free

And you perceive those things as having what to do with being/not being a mix of capitalism and communism/socialism?

Red:
I presume you are referring to this. The man was incarcerated for protesting the demolition of crosses, not for displaying them.

Blue:
What does that mean? I'm aware that in the PRC, enforcement of intellectual property laws isn't nearly as robust as it is in Western nations. When it comes to ownership of companies themselves, there's no way around the fact that the details of a company's organization are neither as clearly stated nor widely disclosed as are its opposite numbers in the West.

Green:
One can say that of pretty much any government. All governments variously experience greater and lesser degrees of success at achieving that end. What do you suppose the Civil War was other than a major riot?

Pink:
Chinese people are free to do the things they want to do in most cases. They may lack the freedom to do some of the things we are, but then most of them aren't of a mind to do those things either.

Other:
As a nation, China is evolving. It entered the 20th century technologically behind the West and "then came Mao," who saw population growth as a key to gaining dominance. Looking at that policy's impact during Mao's term as Chairman, that may seem like a disaster. Looking at it now as China seeks to assert its place in the global economy, one can see China as being in much the same place the U.S. was in the 20th century -- a massive manufacturing powerhouse loaded with millions of laborers who demanded lower wages than their European counterparts, thereby allowing U.S. companies to thrive by selling goods both domestically and abroad because the U.S. produced goods were, as are Chinese made goods today, comparatively inexpensive.

That may have happened with or without Mao's push for increased population size, for at the outset of Mao's term, China already had a huge population, but that boost in size has resulted in China likely enjoying the fruits of a huge boom in manufacturing for longer than did the U.S.

As for political freedoms and the command nature of China's organization, one has to realize that it's a nation of 1.6B+ people, over half of whom are illiterate. The place would be a huge mess were it to universally, as we do in the U.S., for example, have all the freedoms we enjoy. To get a sense of what I mean, imagine what it'd be like if you were to remove all the adult supervision from a large elementary school and leave the kids to their own devices. How good do you think their decisions would be? Quite simply, folks who are, through no fault of their own, ignorant (not stupid; they aren't the same things) must be led and controlled, otherwise, there's nothing but calamity going on.

Some might point to India which has nearly as large a population. India's literacy rate is ~75%. That's why they can have a democratic political system.

The preceding isn't in any way intended to advocate for China. It's to say that one must consider the nation and its policies objectively. What makes it onto our news presents China from the Western view of it as a competitor. That's all well and good, and seen from that perspective, the reality of China's domestic imperatives present challenges and sometimes opposing sets of needs/goals between the two. Looking at China from the standpoint of what it needs to do to boost the quality of life for its people, much of how they run their country isn't wrong, even if it denies some Chinese the freedoms we take for granted. Nevertheless, there being 1.6B+ Chinese, make no mistake, if they want to overthrow their government, they can. (Of course, seeing as China has the population size that affords it the potential to have more armed forces than the U.S. has citizens, there's not much else it can't overthrow if it wants to. LOL)

 

[sakinago]

A mixture of capitalism and communism is the way to go.

Well, that would be called China, at least to the extent China can rightly be seen as still aiming to arrive at communism.

Mind you, if you spend much time in China, you'll find there's a lot to like about it. I can't say much about the political process there, but living there is quite a pleasurable experience, at least I find it so. I say that only to note that living under/in an environment like one of China's enterprise zones.

And China is the modern day form of slavery.

I am in the PRC weekly. I have multiple clients there, and I've been to their factories, their "company towns," the big cities, etc. I have a translator who accompanies most of the time. I have had numerous conversations about working conditions in the PRC. I can assure you that what they have going on, though in some places dissimilar to what we observe in the U.S. is not at all slavery of any type. So, please, let's dispense with the inflammatory/morality metaphors, or at the very least, I ask that you reserve them for your discourse with other members.

I say that because china can manipulate it's currency on a whim. It shuts out any discourse with the government online. It throws people in prison for displaying a cross. You are not allowed to have an individual published idea. It gives the people just enough to stop them from rioting, and displays a large enough police state to further discourage that. They are very effective at displaying the carrot and stick. It may not be real slavery like we see in the Middle East, but those people are far from free

And you perceive those things as having what to do with being/not being a mix of capitalism and communism/socialism?

Red:
I presume you are referring to this. The man was incarcerated for protesting the demolition of crosses, not for displaying them.

Blue:
What does that mean? I'm aware that in the PRC, enforcement of intellectual property laws isn't nearly as robust as it is in Western nations. When it comes to ownership of companies themselves, there's no way around the fact that the details of a company's organization are neither as clearly stated nor widely disclosed as are its opposite numbers in the West.

Green:
One can say that of pretty much any government. All governments variously experience greater and lesser degrees of success at achieving that end. What do you suppose the Civil War was other than a major riot?

Pink:
Chinese people are free to do the things they want to do in most cases. They may lack the freedom to do some of the things we are, but then most of them aren't of a mind to do those things either.

Other:
As a nation, China is evolving. It entered the 20th century technologically behind the West and "then came Mao," who saw population growth as a key to gaining dominance. Looking at that policy's impact during Mao's term as Chairman, that may seem like a disaster. Looking at it now as China seeks to assert its place in the global economy, one can see China as being in much the same place the U.S. was in the 20th century -- a massive manufacturing powerhouse loaded with millions of laborers who demanded lower wages than their European counterparts, thereby allowing U.S. companies to thrive by selling goods both domestically and abroad because the U.S. produced goods were, as are Chinese made goods today, comparatively inexpensive.

That may have happened with or without Mao's push for increased population size, for at the outset of Mao's term, China already had a huge population, but that boost in size has resulted in China likely enjoying the fruits of a huge boom in manufacturing for longer than did the U.S.

As for political freedoms and the command nature of China's organization, one has to realize that it's a nation of 1.6B+ people, over half of whom are illiterate. The place would be a huge mess were it to universally, as we do in the U.S., for example, have all the freedoms we enjoy. To get a sense of what I mean, imagine what it'd be like if you were to remove all the adult supervision from a large elementary school and leave the kids to their own devices. How good do you think their decisions would be? Quite simply, folks who are, through no fault of their own, ignorant (not stupid; they aren't the same things) must be led and controlled, otherwise, there's nothing but calamity going on.

Some might point to India which has nearly as large a population. India's literacy rate is ~75%. That's why they can have a democratic political system.

The preceding isn't in any way intended to advocate for China. It's to say that one must consider the nation and its policies objectively. What makes it onto our news presents China from the Western view of it as a competitor. That's all well and good, and seen from that perspective, the reality of China's domestic imperatives present challenges and sometimes opposing sets of needs/goals between the two. Looking at China from the standpoint of what it needs to do to boost the quality of life for its people, much of how they run their country isn't wrong, even if it denies some Chinese the freedoms we take for granted. Nevertheless, there being 1.6B+ Chinese, make no mistake, if they want to overthrow their government, they can. (Of course, seeing as China has the population size that affords it the potential to have more armed forces than the U.S. has citizens, there's not much else it can't overthrow if it wants to. LOL)

Of course half their people are illiterate. Dumb, unarmed people are easier to control. As soon as people realize they don't need to their government, masters, or whatever to think for them, their masters loose a lot of power. Kings and religious leaders in the dark ages kept their power by denying their citizens education, by denying them the liberal arts, the arts that set us free. Your argument to justify why China's policies are necessary, are the same justifications that people made for slavery in America. Look these Africans are stupid, and savages, we're giving them a better life than they'd have if they were still living on the plains of Africa.

 

[sakinago]

I can agree with you there too actually, but GMOs still have feed an insurmountable amount of starving children across the globe. More so than we could do before. And they have also kept many farmers in business, by keeping a steady stream of production despite unfavorable weather conditions that would have put them through some hard times

I think your attributing altruistic reasons where they arent really existing. If they were giving away the food I could see your point but in actuality they are just making money off starving kids. More marketing. No one stops to ask what are the results of those GMO in other countries. A population that cant feed itself and therefore dependent on the large corporations for more goods. Later down the road they are now a fresh market of consumers. Which oddly enough makes the corporations wealthier.

A. We are giving away A LOT of it
B. capitalism is a system where you increase wealth by providing a SERVICE to others at a price they deem worthy.

No someone is buying it and giving it away. The people that are benefiting financially are not giving it away.
I know what capitalism is.

So companies are not capable of charity?

And I'm not sure what the alternative would be to that. Work and give all your production away for nothing?

Yes there are plenty of companies that do charity. Its a wonderful tax write off.

There is no alternative. Thats why I said its not altruistic. If they gave away all their production and didnt earn any money then that would be dumb. However, its never really as binary an argument as people always attempt to make it.

Then why question the altruism? To obtain wealth in capitalism you have to improve the lives of others in some way. It has done a lot of that

 

[Asclepias]

I think your attributing altruistic reasons where they arent really existing. If they were giving away the food I could see your point but in actuality they are just making money off starving kids. More marketing. No one stops to ask what are the results of those GMO in other countries. A population that cant feed itself and therefore dependent on the large corporations for more goods. Later down the road they are now a fresh market of consumers. Which oddly enough makes the corporations wealthier.

A. We are giving away A LOT of it
B. capitalism is a system where you increase wealth by providing a SERVICE to others at a price they deem worthy.

No someone is buying it and giving it away. The people that are benefiting financially are not giving it away.
I know what capitalism is.

So companies are not capable of charity?

And I'm not sure what the alternative would be to that. Work and give all your production away for nothing?

Yes there are plenty of companies that do charity. Its a wonderful tax write off.

There is no alternative. Thats why I said its not altruistic. If they gave away all their production and didnt earn any money then that would be dumb. However, its never really as binary an argument as people always attempt to make it.

Then why question the altruism? To obtain wealth in capitalism you have to improve the lives of others in some way. It has done a lot of that

Because someone claimed it was given away as if it was done altruistically.

Thats one way. Another way is to claim to improve the lives of others in some way. Basically its all marketing and perception. Why is my life improved because I own a Bentley instead of a Pinto? Why is my life improved because I have a PC instead of a Mac?

 

[sakinago]

A. We are giving away A LOT of it
B. capitalism is a system where you increase wealth by providing a SERVICE to others at a price they deem worthy.

No someone is buying it and giving it away. The people that are benefiting financially are not giving it away.
I know what capitalism is.

So companies are not capable of charity?

And I'm not sure what the alternative would be to that. Work and give all your production away for nothing?

Yes there are plenty of companies that do charity. Its a wonderful tax write off.

There is no alternative. Thats why I said its not altruistic. If they gave away all their production and didnt earn any money then that would be dumb. However, its never really as binary an argument as people always attempt to make it.

Then why question the altruism? To obtain wealth in capitalism you have to improve the lives of others in some way. It has done a lot of that

Because someone claimed it was given away as if it was done altruistically.

Thats one way. Another way is to claim to improve the lives of others in some way. Basically its all marketing and perception. Why is my life improved because I own a Bentley instead of a Pinto? Why is my life improved because I have a PC instead of a Mac?

Are bentleys overpriced sure. But is that inherently wrong if people choose to still purchase them? They're still way better than a pinto. Is it wrong to own a Bentley?

And there's still plenty of altruism there. So what If I buy a can of beans and give it away, and the bean company still profits? That's still altruism on my part. That company has no clue what I intend to do with that, and why should they?

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, that would be called China, at least to the extent China can rightly be seen as still aiming to arrive at communism.

Mind you, if you spend much time in China, you'll find there's a lot to like about it. I can't say much about the political process there, but living there is quite a pleasurable experience, at least I find it so. I say that only to note that living under/in an environment like one of China's enterprise zones.

And China is the modern day form of slavery.

I am in the PRC weekly. I have multiple clients there, and I've been to their factories, their "company towns," the big cities, etc. I have a translator who accompanies most of the time. I have had numerous conversations about working conditions in the PRC. I can assure you that what they have going on, though in some places dissimilar to what we observe in the U.S. is not at all slavery of any type. So, please, let's dispense with the inflammatory/morality metaphors, or at the very least, I ask that you reserve them for your discourse with other members.

I say that because china can manipulate it's currency on a whim. It shuts out any discourse with the government online. It throws people in prison for displaying a cross. You are not allowed to have an individual published idea. It gives the people just enough to stop them from rioting, and displays a large enough police state to further discourage that. They are very effective at displaying the carrot and stick. It may not be real slavery like we see in the Middle East, but those people are far from free

And you perceive those things as having what to do with being/not being a mix of capitalism and communism/socialism?

Red:
I presume you are referring to this. The man was incarcerated for protesting the demolition of crosses, not for displaying them.

Blue:
What does that mean? I'm aware that in the PRC, enforcement of intellectual property laws isn't nearly as robust as it is in Western nations. When it comes to ownership of companies themselves, there's no way around the fact that the details of a company's organization are neither as clearly stated nor widely disclosed as are its opposite numbers in the West.

Green:
One can say that of pretty much any government. All governments variously experience greater and lesser degrees of success at achieving that end. What do you suppose the Civil War was other than a major riot?

Pink:
Chinese people are free to do the things they want to do in most cases. They may lack the freedom to do some of the things we are, but then most of them aren't of a mind to do those things either.

Other:
As a nation, China is evolving. It entered the 20th century technologically behind the West and "then came Mao," who saw population growth as a key to gaining dominance. Looking at that policy's impact during Mao's term as Chairman, that may seem like a disaster. Looking at it now as China seeks to assert its place in the global economy, one can see China as being in much the same place the U.S. was in the 20th century -- a massive manufacturing powerhouse loaded with millions of laborers who demanded lower wages than their European counterparts, thereby allowing U.S. companies to thrive by selling goods both domestically and abroad because the U.S. produced goods were, as are Chinese made goods today, comparatively inexpensive.

That may have happened with or without Mao's push for increased population size, for at the outset of Mao's term, China already had a huge population, but that boost in size has resulted in China likely enjoying the fruits of a huge boom in manufacturing for longer than did the U.S.

As for political freedoms and the command nature of China's organization, one has to realize that it's a nation of 1.6B+ people, over half of whom are illiterate. The place would be a huge mess were it to universally, as we do in the U.S., for example, have all the freedoms we enjoy. To get a sense of what I mean, imagine what it'd be like if you were to remove all the adult supervision from a large elementary school and leave the kids to their own devices. How good do you think their decisions would be? Quite simply, folks who are, through no fault of their own, ignorant (not stupid; they aren't the same things) must be led and controlled, otherwise, there's nothing but calamity going on.

Some might point to India which has nearly as large a population. India's literacy rate is ~75%. That's why they can have a democratic political system.

The preceding isn't in any way intended to advocate for China. It's to say that one must consider the nation and its policies objectively. What makes it onto our news presents China from the Western view of it as a competitor. That's all well and good, and seen from that perspective, the reality of China's domestic imperatives present challenges and sometimes opposing sets of needs/goals between the two. Looking at China from the standpoint of what it needs to do to boost the quality of life for its people, much of how they run their country isn't wrong, even if it denies some Chinese the freedoms we take for granted. Nevertheless, there being 1.6B+ Chinese, make no mistake, if they want to overthrow their government, they can. (Of course, seeing as China has the population size that affords it the potential to have more armed forces than the U.S. has citizens, there's not much else it can't overthrow if it wants to. LOL)

Of course half their people are illiterate. Dumb, unarmed people are easier to control. As soon as people realize they don't need to their government, masters, or whatever to think for them, their masters loose a lot of power. Kings and religious leaders in the dark ages kept their power by denying their citizens education, by denying them the liberal arts, the arts that set us free. Your argument to justify why China's policies are necessary, are the same justifications that people made for slavery in America. Look these Africans are stupid, and savages, we're giving them a better life than they'd have if they were still living on the plains of Africa.

...And that quite likely will be part of China's future, but it's not going to be part of the near future. For now, the types of control China's leaders exert on the general populace is in the best interests of most of that populace. People like Mr. Ren and his sister who have the knowledge and analytical skills needed to make well informed decisions have vastly more discretionary decision making authority over the conduct of their own affairs. In that regard, China takes a "to each to his ability" stance, of course that doesn't make it into the news, but trust me, if you go to China and work with members of its burgeoning middle and upper class citizens, you'll find they live lives quite similar to ours.

Yes, they have to put up with some of the limitations that are widely disclosed in the news -- limits that you and I find objectionable -- but folks there recognize that as the price they must pay until the rest of the populace catches up with them. You also need to understand Chinese culture, which far more so than American culture values the "turtle's" way of achieving outcomes over the "hare's." Slow, methodical means that have less risk of causing disaster along the way to ends is their way. Make no mistake, you have no idea what conservative and risk averse mean until you go to China and live among the Chinese.

 

[westwall]

No, HIstory shows that Capitalism kicks ass and produces vast wealth.

This is true. It makes a few wealthy beyond belief and kicks the ass of the masses

Untrue. Prior to capitalism there was no middle class. There were the poor and the elite. The middle class owes its very existence to capitalism.

There is no middle class. Thats just a label they made up to convince you to keep working and buying their products. Its all part of the keeping up with the Jones mentality. if you are not wealthy then you are poor. If you dont believe me try paying for your home without a job.

What? You have no will of your own? You are not capable of saying "I don't need that new TV?" Just wondering when personal responsibility kicks in or are all of you just infants with no will of your own?

My will isnt the issue. The issue is if a supposed middle class person is unable to produce income then they will see how quickly they are really just a better off poor person. True wealth is the ability to own income producing assets without having to work.

No, you are claiming that capitalism makes you do things. That is patently ridiculous. The "keeping up with the Jones's" mentality is an individuals decision. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Put simply, if you don't like a company, don't buy their product and they will very quickly go out of business.

That's the beauty of capitalism. Socialism, on the other hand, entrenches single companies in a product so that no matter how bad a product they produce you simply have no other option. Socialism fails at every test because eventually the producers get tired of supporting a bunch of lazy louts and either leave to go produce where their work is valued, or they simply stop working and let the country collapse, as it invariably does.

 

[Militants]

The Best and Fascism third best and Socialism and Marxism 2nd and 4th places !!

Only Communism and Nationalsocialism we will no to do in Sweden !!

To manny migrants here to have Nazism festival here !!

 

[Asclepias]

No someone is buying it and giving it away. The people that are benefiting financially are not giving it away.
I know what capitalism is.

So companies are not capable of charity?

And I'm not sure what the alternative would be to that. Work and give all your production away for nothing?

Yes there are plenty of companies that do charity. Its a wonderful tax write off.

There is no alternative. Thats why I said its not altruistic. If they gave away all their production and didnt earn any money then that would be dumb. However, its never really as binary an argument as people always attempt to make it.

Then why question the altruism? To obtain wealth in capitalism you have to improve the lives of others in some way. It has done a lot of that

Because someone claimed it was given away as if it was done altruistically.

Thats one way. Another way is to claim to improve the lives of others in some way. Basically its all marketing and perception. Why is my life improved because I own a Bentley instead of a Pinto? Why is my life improved because I have a PC instead of a Mac?

Are bentleys overpriced sure. But is that inherently wrong if people choose to still purchase them? They're still way better than a pinto. Is it wrong to own a Bentley?

And there's still plenty of altruism there. So what If I buy a can of beans and give it away, and the bean company still profits? That's still altruism on my part. That company has no clue what I intend to do with that, and why should they?

I never said anything was wrong with it. I just pointed out my life wasnt improved by owning a Bentley inherently. Its just a lot of marketing and perception.

That was my point. The company that makes the GMOs still get paid. The individual that gives it away is the one thats altruistic. Not the capitalist.

 

[Asclepias]

This is true. It makes a few wealthy beyond belief and kicks the ass of the masses

Untrue. Prior to capitalism there was no middle class. There were the poor and the elite. The middle class owes its very existence to capitalism.

There is no middle class. Thats just a label they made up to convince you to keep working and buying their products. Its all part of the keeping up with the Jones mentality. if you are not wealthy then you are poor. If you dont believe me try paying for your home without a job.

What? You have no will of your own? You are not capable of saying "I don't need that new TV?" Just wondering when personal responsibility kicks in or are all of you just infants with no will of your own?

My will isnt the issue. The issue is if a supposed middle class person is unable to produce income then they will see how quickly they are really just a better off poor person. True wealth is the ability to own income producing assets without having to work.

No, you are claiming that capitalism makes you do things. That is patently ridiculous. The "keeping up with the Jones's" mentality is an individuals decision. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Put simply, if you don't like a company, don't buy their product and they will very quickly go out of business.

That's the beauty of capitalism. Socialism, on the other hand, entrenches single companies in a product so that no matter how bad a product they produce you simply have no other option. Socialism fails at every test because eventually the producers get tired of supporting a bunch of lazy louts and either leave to go produce where their work is valued, or they simply stop working and let the country collapse, as it invariably does.

Capitalism does make the masses do things. Do you think those commercials that bombard you on every type of media are public service announcements or an attempt to get into your subconscious in order to generate a desire for their products? You can pretend science hasnt proven that constant repetition doesnt have an effect but there is this industry called the marketing industry that stands as proof you are being naive or in denial.

I dont get why you think socialism would make the idea of a better mousetrap something no one would aspire to. The earliest forms of governments/economies were socialism. That didnt stop them from inventing better methods of doing things.

 

[Holos]

As far as I can tell, it is a political system in which highly gifted commoners can, with a lot of hard work, AND a bit of luck, attain equality before the law with those who were born into privilege.

Did I forget anything essential?

I mean sure, some may want to invoke whimsical terms like "free market" and "merit based," but lets try to stick with what has actually ever existed in reality.

There is nothing about luck in Capitalism - or any other political social economic form of organization. Unless, of course, you clearly comprehend every single political social economic organizational form and how each relates to the other. Then you may in fact also be granted luck to understand what you are talking about and do right in its name and function.

You have not provided a single essentiality as all the words and concepts you shared are misconstrued and misdirecting to people who would actually appreciate to know the answer to your question. The question itself loses its worth for the introduction you have placed as a starting point.

All that being written, do you really want to know? I am willing to educate you and your friends here if that is also what you intented with initiating this thread.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Untrue. Prior to capitalism there was no middle class. There were the poor and the elite. The middle class owes its very existence to capitalism.

There is no middle class. Thats just a label they made up to convince you to keep working and buying their products. Its all part of the keeping up with the Jones mentality. if you are not wealthy then you are poor. If you dont believe me try paying for your home without a job.

What? You have no will of your own? You are not capable of saying "I don't need that new TV?" Just wondering when personal responsibility kicks in or are all of you just infants with no will of your own?

My will isnt the issue. The issue is if a supposed middle class person is unable to produce income then they will see how quickly they are really just a better off poor person. True wealth is the ability to own income producing assets without having to work.

No, you are claiming that capitalism makes you do things. That is patently ridiculous. The "keeping up with the Jones's" mentality is an individuals decision. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Put simply, if you don't like a company, don't buy their product and they will very quickly go out of business.

That's the beauty of capitalism. Socialism, on the other hand, entrenches single companies in a product so that no matter how bad a product they produce you simply have no other option. Socialism fails at every test because eventually the producers get tired of supporting a bunch of lazy louts and either leave to go produce where their work is valued, or they simply stop working and let the country collapse, as it invariably does.

Capitalism does make the masses do things. Do you think those commercials that bombard you on every type of media are public service announcements or an attempt to get into your subconscious in order to generate a desire for their products? You can pretend science hasnt proven that constant repetition doesnt have an effect but there is this industry called the marketing industry that stands as proof you are being naive or in denial.

I dont get why you think socialism would make the idea of a better mousetrap something no one would aspire to. The earliest forms of governments/economies were socialism. That didnt stop them from inventing better methods of doing things.

Indeed,communism put the first man into space.