Marxist
Senior Member
Yeah, tell me more about the great depression, 2008... The vast majority are better off? You're not even looking at real socialism, you're looking at countries with claimed socialism. Look at the paris commune, the free territories of ukraine.. Socialism/anarchism has worked, and did improve the lives of the people until they were violently slaughtered. Ah, the typical innovation bullshit. All of those innovations could happen without capitalism, and I'm pretty sure the motive behind lots of innovations wasn't related to capitalism at all. Oh, not like the USSR sent someone into space.... Venezuela? It's better off then it was before Hugo.You completely ignoring the part when the poor suffer when the bubble bursts, as shown throughout history.Social democracy is the dominant socioeconomic model. Pure capitalism results in great poverty and great wealth and nothing in between. And it relies on brutality stifling the leftists in pretty much the same way as Stalin ended right wing opposition in Russia.
The poorest people under capitalism are better off than the bulk of the population under socialism. What "brutality" has capitalism inflicted on any leftist, arresting them for trespassing on private property?
The closest thing we've seen to pure capitalism is Chile in the 1970's. One of the most repressive dictatorships of the last century.
Chile is the most prosperous country in Latin America with the highest standard of living. Oh those poor poor Chileans! They have suffered so much under capitalism! I'm sure they would much rather live in a country like Venezuela or Cuba. Yeah, Pinochet was far worse than Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao. Are you serious?
You're a comedy act.
Chileans didn't prosper under Pinochet. Quite the opposite. Wages dropped, prices rose. The rich got fabulously wealthy and the poor died miserably. Capitalism has boom and bust cycles, under which the poor survive during boom times, and suffer when the bubbles burst.
That's just a flat out lie. How did Chile become the wealthiest country in Latin America if it didn't prosper? That's pretty much the definition of "prosper," isn't it?
Under capitalism, poor people get poorer. In a social democracy, the boom and bust cycles are blunted by the social safety net. It is the social safety net that keeps the poor from suffering.
You need to study history and economics.
Under capitalism everyone gets richer. Under the welfare state, the economy stagnates and a permanent underclass dependent on government handout develops. Then morons like you blame it on capitalism.
I read history, not propaganda.
1973 Chilean coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia - History, you little idiot.
http://chilepd7.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/8/6/18866608/3547659_orig.jpg - Doesn't look "wealthy" to your capitalist standard you moan all day about.
The welfare state? Tell me all about nordic countries.
Those "bubbles" are the result of government following policies endorsed by morons like you. Even taking the bubbles into consideration, the vast majority of people are far better off under capitalism than under socialism.
Virtually all the wealth we enjoy today is the product of capitalism. Computers, flat screen televisions, cell phones, automobiles, electric lighting, anaesthesia, yada, yada, yada. All these advances occurred in capitalist countries, not in some people's republic like Venezuela.