Poverty in the world is caused by a lack of capitalism. China's economy is only now starting to grow because of AMERICAN corporations stepping in, and giving them jobs, and in general, income of capital.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-19 2:46 (sage)
Yes they were.
Read moar.
That much is obvious.
Enjoy your tiny world.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-19 10:56
your argument does have some truth. but mainly because china has shifted from a communist approach to a more capitalist one. in this case it works because china has the massive labour resources and demand to aid this development. it's not as you say, the americans once again, saving the needy. china was bound to develop into a leading economy regardless of america.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-19 11:06
This has probably been mentioned but communism has never been done right. Every Communist party has always descended into a bonapartist pseudo workers state where all the power is held by the few, they often hold all the money as well.
China for example, has been a dictatorship for years. Maoism isn't communism, it's a damn dictatorship.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-19 11:50
>>43
That's half truth and half communist propaganda. Marx was authoritarian and communism was intended to be very authoritarian and stricly controlled system. True communism is strictly authoritarian society in which every worker works for good of state and they have no right to own property, but state is supposed to provide them all they need. In short it's slave camp in which everyone is supposed to be equal as in equally fucked. Communist countries in past have been quite true to Marx, but their rulers have in all cases abused system for their personal gain.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-20 0:14
>>41
The point is that the reason you dislike Rand is not because of any meritorious reasons, but rather because you just dislike her politics/philosophy.
"Read moar."
The reason you think I haven't read anything is simply because you can't see through your bias against Rand or her work, so you think it is bad, and anyone who could possibly see anything in it is obviously ignorant, stupid, or has bad taste in literature.
The fact that you compared her to a partisan writer such as Stiglitz should show that your opinions regarding her literature are mere reflections of your politics.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-20 7:35
but rather because you just dislike her politics/philosophy.
What do you think the purpose of her literature was? What the fuck do you think "This is John Galt Speaking" was about? The moral of these stories? Do you realise that Ayn Rand herself believed there was little difference between literature and philosophy? Why did you list those books if it wasn't for the philosophy they espouse? Why do people even read them?
You are a total imbicile?
simply because you can't see through your bias against Rand or her work
See the above. You presented pieces of fiction as proof of the superiority of Capitalism due to the philosophy inherent in them, then you attempt to disclaim the philosophy? Nice!
Thanks for proving yet again that most objectivists are morons.
"See the above. You presented pieces of fiction as proof of the superiority of Capitalism due to the philosophy inherent in them, then you attempt to disclaim the philosophy? Nice!"
Maybe you should look above. They weren't all fiction, nor did I present them, or try to present them, as proof that Capitalism works. Maybe you should read through these again?
Capitalism works because of the self-interest/greed factor. I never tried to say it worked because of 'proof' presented in Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead.
I recommended the books because I liked them.
"Why do people even read them?"
Why read any fiction? They are good books.
"Thanks for proving yet again that most objectivists are morons."
However the entire point of communism is that every worker is involved in running the state. Like a co-op. Everyone is elected etc. Also people do have a right to own property. However prosperity is achieved not personally but when the entire state prospers. Thus everyone is equally fucked or not fucked depending on how much work they do.
Aside from the fact that this is a -political- board, in which we are having a -political- discussion, about -capitalism-.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-21 21:19
nor did I present them, or try to present them, as proof that Capitalism works Again, read up. I listed them because I liked the books. Aside from the fact that this is a -political- board
Either you're using pieces of fiction to support your argument, or you're not. What's it going to be? y/n: _
>>55 is right. Cut the bullshit, fuckbrain. You obviously brought up the books to further cement your idealogical stance in this argument. Just admit that you fail and move the fuck on.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 0:45
>>56
"Just admit that you fail and move the fuck on."
No.
"You obviously brought up the books to further cement your idealogical stance in this argument."
The books had nothing to do with my original argument that the reason capitalism works is the greed/self-interest factor.
I presented the books because they present a moral case for Capitalism.
This moral case has absolutely nothing to do with my original argument, which, as stated above, debates the simple fact that Capitalism WORKS.
Any association you made on this is purely assumptive.
When I said: "And capitalism drives achievement and progress," I in no way was trying to say the reason Capitalism "drives achivement and progress" is because it is morally sound.
The fact that it is a morally sound system is just the icing on the cake. Capitalism works.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 0:52
I presented the books because they present a moral case for Capitalism.
For few definitions of moral.
Selfishness and egoism go hand in hand with immorality.
"Selfishness and egoism go hand in hand with immorality."
I disagree.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 1:16
That's it? You disagree?
You think that acting with little regard for your fellow man is moral? There's a large number of criminals in prison who'd love that, but society doesn't agree.
We have a good diagnosis for a person who thinks like you: antisocial personality disorder.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 1:20
I should be permitted to have anti-social personality disorder and everyone else should just bend over and take it. You are only telling me to be moral because I am not you!
In fact, I should be the supreme despot of the world who controls his minions using his mind powers. I will call my government the Zarg Dominion of God Powers and Destruction (Zedogpad for a short pronounciation).
I will not stop plotting and scheming and screwing over my fellow man until I achieve this.
Which brings up back to Ayn Rand and those fucking books again. Objectivism, at it's very core completly invalidates any disagreement as to what is immoral or not. There is no way to objectify morality, though you seem to think Capitalism is well on it's to doing this, it's not. By viritue of subjectivity lucid and nebulous nature there can never be something that is completely objective.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 1:32
What I love about Randites is that they always think they'll be the winners, when invariably they'll be the ones ground face-down into the dirt.
There will be two possible winners: a tiny group of ruthless and brilliant people who beat all the others, or a mob of individuals who realised that there's strength in numbers. The odds are against the preaching idiot in question getting into group one, and they're excluded from group two by definition.
Of course, that raises the question: why does there have to be a winner? This isn't the jungle.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 1:47
>>62
Humans are capable of morality, but only in small amounts. In order to get people to put a lot of effort into making the economy work they need to gain what they put in. The fairest and most efficnet way of doing this is simply to allow people to compete in the market place and earn their own cash through trade, paying a little tax so to fund a police and military to preserve the free-trade environment.
Maybe in 5000 years when all humans transcend into a super new epoch of über greatness can an economic system be beased entirely on morality, but certainly not at the moment.
Do you understand now?
>>63
I agree, marxist are always on about a foolish lower class beating the crap out of everyone. I have a better idea, why not make everyone middle class. The middle class are always trying to be virtuous to get on the side of the lower class so they can gain power, according to marx. Perhaps this is true, but his conclusion is fucking stupid. The solution is to make everyone middle class, so that everyone is virtuous. To make everyone a property owner and a worker, so that everyone works and has private property.
What honestly makes you think that capitalism is merely about "making the economy work"? To succeed in capitalism, you need to not only gain what you put in, but what others' put in as well and if you have to cut some corners and a few people get hurt- then business is business right? The nature of the market place can never be 'objective' because the very need for a market place is subjective and the market place is only capable of responding to subjective needs.
Do *you* understand now?
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 14:21
>>65
"What honestly makes you think that capitalism is merely about "making the economy work"?"
I've just told you, your next step isn't to repeat your previous argument, but to either agree with me or challenge my argument in debate. I'm sorry if my explanation wasn't as full and exploratory as it should have been, this is just some forum on 4chan and not very important to me. I left out the obvious so that I wouldn't condescend you and waste my time, but perhaps I left out too much. Luckily I feel the need to answer your queries.
"To succeed in capitalism, you need to not only gain what you put in, but what others' put in as well and if you have to cut some corners and a few people get hurt- then business is business right?"
I expected you to deduce from my argument that in a capitalism if your business is failing it is because less people are buying your products and services, this is not due to the crimes of your competitors but rather the decreasing usefulness of your company. "Cutting corners" occurs in socialist economies aswell as capitalism and thus is not a good example of the differences between capitalism and socialism. I do not deny that crime occurs in a capitalism, but it should be obvious that crime is easer in a socialism since it depends on a lot of trust in the people in charge of allocating resources and in a very large government which is difficult for the public to discipline.
"The nature of the market place can never be 'objective' because the very need for a market place is subjective and the market place is only capable of responding to subjective needs."
An economic system which aims to give people what they work for is based on the fact that human beings are largely subjective. You should have deduced this from when I wrote..
"Humans are capable of morality, but only in small amounts. In order to get people to put a lot of effort into making the economy work they need to gain what they put in. The fairest and most efficnet way of doing this is simply to allow people to compete in the market place and earn their own cash through trade, paying a little tax so to fund a police and military to preserve the free-trade environment."
I do not deny that the capitalist system is not perfect and that resorting to socialist practices where it does not work is necessary. Companies in a democratic-capitalism are as accountable to the people as companies in a democratic-socialism by the rule of law, except that they are more efficient due to the need to compete and they are not linked to the government making it more difficult to corrupt the democratic process. Democracies are capable of a mix of different economic systems and they generally choose a capitalist base with a few socialist institutions to solve problems that capitalism cannot, this is because socialism is less efficient than capitalism and undesirable in the majority of the economy, but it is a better method than capitalism where a monopoly is inevitable (such as water services).
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 15:07
"That's it? You disagree?
You think that acting with little regard for your fellow man is moral? There's a large number of criminals in prison who'd love that, but society doesn't agree.
We have a good diagnosis for a person who thinks like you: antisocial personality disorder."
So, according to you, man has no right to live for himself, sacrificing neither others to self, nor self to others?
The important aspect of this that you seem to miss is: "sacrificing neither others to self".
The point is that a businessman who lives peacefully, harming nobody else, who offers his products to others for voluntary, peaceful trade, harms nobody else in the process, and should thus be as free to do so as is possible, while still maintaining a society in which other people are free to do so as well.
Capitalism is unavoidable, bountiful and vital to progress. But the same factor that fuels it -endless wants of humans- are also intrinsical in some of the worst breaches against international justice and progress today (Without hesitation, corporations ignore spreading prosperity in favor of making profit of: Kongo, The minerals of Afghanistan, the Unocal pipeline, India, China and so on). Capitalism is a horrible power w/out the consciousness of consumers, and you're not too big on that in the US.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-22 16:49
>>69
Sure. But those wars of foreign aggression and whatnot, are undertaken by the government. This is a problem with the mixed economy, in which corporations can bribe out, and control the government. If the government didn't have the authority to go to war to begin with, and if it wasn't centralized enough to do so, under the command of just a handful of individuals, it would not likely have mattered if a handful of large corporations wanted the war.
This is all beside the point, of course. If you simply agree that, generally speaking, freedom is a good thing, and that people should be free to act as they please, so long as that action does not cause direct, demonstrable physical harm to another individual, or impede his rights to the same, you are a Capitalist, generally speaking.
Um, no. There's really nothing else to say here >>67 and >>69 pretty much have it right. You're delusional if you think Capitalism is the best possible solution for everyone. You seem to still be approaching the argument from a purely economical stand point. But this is about morality, here. And the sucessful companies are the immoral ones. Is this a human failing? Yes, but that's what I meant when I said that it is virtually impossible to even entertain the notion of objectivity in the HUMAN world, a world we've built on subjectivity.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-23 8:00
So, according to you, man has no right to live for himself, sacrificing neither others to self, nor self to others?
On the contrary. Regrettably, said rhetoric is inconsistent with your own position. If you're selfish and egoistic, you'll sacrifice others for your own ends. After all, if it's good for you, who cares about everyone else? Why do you think we lock such people up (except the bright ones who go on to white collar crime)?
Before advancing a counterargument, it helps to check it doesn't shoot you in the foot first.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-23 9:06
>>71
Capitalism isn't best solution for eveyone, but that's not it's point. Capitalism is free system in which natural selection rules. Fortunate, wise and strong people eat unfortunate dumb people. It may seem cruel and merciless, but it works. We humans are animals afterall.
Name:
Xel2006-06-23 9:41
>>73 The problem with such a libertarian stance is the lack of pragmatic exemplification. Many of history's worst chapters began with intention of enterprise, expansion and progress. There are a few million tortured/raped/contaminated/burned/shot/force-laboured-to death aztecs et al. that have a little to say about The Selfish Ideal.
You own yourself (your body).
Nobody has the right to initiate physical force or violence upon another human as a means of gaining values.
So tell me, what do they have to say about the selfish ideal? From your description, I would say it doesn't sound like they are adhering to all the core principles of libertarianism.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-24 0:25
>>74 There are a few million tortured/raped/contaminated/burned/shot/force-laboured-to death aztecs
we're better off without the aztecs, besides they cut peoples hearts out and threw them down a huge flight of stairs i dont know about everybody else here but that sounds like a buttload of karma that brought them down. Also the final blow to the aztecs came when the spainiards launched a massive invasion utilizing the surrounding peoples who were enslaved and repressed for a long time. So basically the aztecs had it coming and nobody in their right minds mourns their loss (at least we stole their recipe for hot chocolate before we destroyed them, lol).
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-24 1:06
>>74
Just because the conquistadores were fucktards, doesn't mean the Aztecs weren't also fucktards. Most of human history has consisted of tyrannies beating the crap out of each other, remember that.
Oh, and just becuase the guys who killed the indians and kept slaves said they were democratic, doesn't mean they actually represent democracy. Sort of like how you commies say the soviets were not a real communism, but a tyranny masquerading as a communism. Bear in mind that Democracy is a method of eliminating tyranny by educating the public of how tyrants maintain and come to power and organising the police and military to prevent it which has succeeded in reducing corruption and tyranny substantially in many countries across the world, whereas communism is just an interpretation of marxist theories and socialism is a half-assed version of communism.
Name:
Xel2006-06-24 4:37
>>75 Nobody really adheres to them, and I guess my real disagreement with libertarianism is its reliance on virtues to act as failsafes on selfishness. Said failsafes have kinda failed in the past. >>76 It wasn't just the Aztecs, yet you have a certain point. >>77 Said Conquistadors weren't democratic. They came from a monarchy at the time.
lol wut? That *is* the point, you dense fucktard. "Capitalism is a free system in which natural selection rules" is capitalist DOGMA. That has never been the case. And that can never be the case by virtue of the fact that every example of capitalism is wrought with apparent or inevitable failure. This is what Xel means by "pragmatic exemplification"
Um, what? No. No, no, no. This really should've ended already. >>76's post when stripped down bare is pure subjective nonsense and then for you to echo his sentiments is wholly rediculous for someone claiming to adhere to a policy of objectivism.
I'll also note that you refuse to address the indefensible fact that human kind has never been an "objectivity" loving species. Subjectivity is what sets up apart from the animals. It is what makes us better than them. Subjectivity created the wheel and fire weilding. Subjectivity created the theory of relativity. How you can sit there and assume capitalism, despite it's glaring moral and philosophical flaws (like it's inability to address and reconcile the existential issues of mankind) is beyond comprehension. I can only deduce from this that you are a troll and a faggot.
G'day.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-24 16:18
>>78
Who cares if they've failed in the past? Rich folks don't have to donate to charity if they don't want to. Nor should they have to. Um, hello? They earned their money. Why is it their responsibility to babysit other people?