Fuck Capitalism

Capitalism, capitalism. How do I loath thee? Let me count the ways….

Few would argue with the conclusion that greed, selfishness, ruthlessness, and egocentrism are qualities that all of us humans possess, to varying degrees of course. Equally compelling is the argument that nearly all of us are capable of acting with kindness, compassion, justice, honesty, generosity, and empathy. Yet despite the sweeping epidemic of unnecessary suffering caused by torrential waves of avarice, self-centeredness, and brutality, our filthy moneyed elite, their well-compensated sycophants, and countless millions of deeply inculcated members of the working class defend the sacred cow of capitalism with the zeal of the Sicarii. What a brilliant way to conduct human affairs and organize ourselves socioeconomically! Not only do we embrace the inevitability of our human frailties; we willfully and perpetually embrace a system that ensures that the worst elements of the human psyche will predominate AND which amply rewards those who act the most reprehensibly.

One of the idiocies advanced as a logical argument to justify the continued existence of the abomination of capitalism is that while it may be flawed, it is still better than any alternative. If capitalism is the best humanity can do, it's time to cash in our chips and leave Earth to our non-human animal counter-parts. They may not have opposable thumbs and formidably sized frontal lobes, but at least they don't engage in the systematic destruction of themselves and the rest of the planet. However, before we act too hastily and engage in mass seppuku, perhaps it would make more sense to implement a mass reorganization of our socioeconomic structure, basing the new paradigm on far more egalitarian, sustainable, democratic, just, and rational principles. Or we could just keep destroying each other and the fucking planet….

Perhaps most disturbing of all is the way in which capitalism's relentless advocates have managed to bamboozle billions of people into equating it with democracy. Diabolical to its core, but sheer genius nonetheless. Concluding that capitalism and democracy are somehow synonymous is a bit like saying that Dick Cheney and the milk of human kindness relate to one another in even a very remote fashion. (Have you seen the myriad pictures of his evil grimaces floating around the Internet? Despicable creature that he is, he doesn't even attempt to mask his malevolence). Capitalism is naturally hierarchical, authoritarian, and brutal. Corporations, the legal vehicles for the plutocracy to maximize their profits while minimizing liability, are structured as tyrannies. What the hell is democratic about dog eat dog, law of the jungle, and every man for himself? Besides, if we uber-capitalists here in the United States are truly "democratic," and we "elected" a depraved idiot like W. to what is ostensibly the most powerful position in the world, what does that say about us?

>>130
There are environmental factors that largely prevent that from happening. The world population as it stands cannot be sustained without modern agriculture. And with the world as globalized as it is, the US will not likely be an agrarian nation again (unless peak oil affects the world as much as they claim it will).

People have always found ways to survive in the environment or they move, my point still stands about states claiming plots of good land that it does not use for itself.

Like Marxism, this sounds like a wonderful theory. THEORY, of course, being the key word.

Because statism has worked in practice to the extent that it has pursued a more peaceful and tolerant society. Statism has failed in all areas it claims to be needed for.

-There's still war and on a bigger scale, note that these wars are mostly only possible because of the debt of the war being shouldered on the people.

-Millions are imprisoned everyday for nonviolent crimes being judged under laws they never consented to.

-People are being robbed on a global scale due to fiat currency, deficit spending, and forced ponzi schemes like social security.

-Parents are forced to pay and send their kids to school where they are forced to learn under a strict standard.

-Restrictions on trade and business so that big businesses dont have much competition.

-The ideological control that you are showing me at the moment by defending it so persistently. (Stockholm Syndrome)And its not even just Stockholm, the state makes you want to die for it or at least those who do anyways and kill those who disagree like me who are of no threat to you. You cannot claim to say "live and let live" while supporting a state, "an act of state is an act of war", i do not think the solution to having a "better society" is to "force" people to abide by a standard of which i think is right(or utilitarian), you, or the majority by that matter.
Like-minded people will get together and naturally emerge building their own societies how they see fit and if they fail well at least everyone who didn't agree with them didn't have to suffer THEIR consequences.

Now you can say statism has "partially" succeeded but that's a subjective standard i would not like to have.
 
Doesn't seem like it would quite work well as it scales up. In more modern times, I've only seen stateless societies work in little communes and such. You'd probably have a better time convincing people of that.

Yeah, states DO THAT. And just because a state was able to "take over" a stateless society, that does not mean statism is by any means "better".

Wages aren't up to prices. And don't tell me it's because of minimum wage (it's not). Wages should be double than what they are now.
"should be"- so you think you should have a say in how an employer spends his money?

Well, it's not just McDonald's that helps it along, but also the fact that junk food is generally quite cheap. It's a good example of how loosely-regulated supermarkets, fast food chains, etc. really are. Multinationals are strong enough to where they will exert their force wherever they may do so, state or no state.

Why do you blame the supplier for supplying what the people WANT.
You really dont know how corporations are products of the state do you?
If you cant understand that then i REALLY now know you arent an econ major.

I would disagree. Other governments and countries spend much less of a percentage on their education systems and their students come out with much better results in literacy, numeracy, etc. Finland, for example, usually comes out on top in the world for education, in the 1970s, their education was shit. They've eliminated their standardized testing, and reformed the system, and now it's one of the best in the world. Japan, also comes out top in education, as well as one of our anglosphere neighbors, Australia. They also are all compulsory (meaning forced attendance). None of these countries' education systems are free market in any sense of the word, either.

child abuse is allowed there(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-jg90JNksE) and indoctrination does wonders,
tests dont mean shit, intelligence is for the most part subjective, i can say that because they still believe in a state it doesn't matter how many tests they can pass they still fail in my book.

If the free market is the cure-all for everything, how is it that these countries largely outpace the US in education with their non-market based education systems?

Because the Education system in the U.S. is not free market?
All forms of teaching still are FORCED to abide by the state standard which i would NOT call free by any means.

Well, it's cultural as well (I see you selectively quoted what I wrote). If they cannot gain power through government, they'll just find some other way.

Then maybe you DON'T WANT A GROUP OF PEOPLE HAVING THE PRESUMED LEGAL RIGHT TO USE FORCE OVER A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA SO THAT THEY CANT DO THAT.

I'm against libertarianism, and what you're advocating because most western countries and the US have been going in more market-orientated directions as of the past few decades (as their governments have been moving further to the right).

ITS NOT LIBERTARIANISM, its Anti Statism/Anarcho Capitalism/
im sympathetic towards libretarianism because they seek a smaller gov but they are still statist. Its not all right, im indifferent and tolerant of libertarian socialism(aka vanilla anarchy, mutualism, and anarcho syndicalism.

Even UK's Labour party (now pretty much a right-wing party) which claims to uphold social democratic principles, has pretty much abandoned most of them in favor of a more neo-liberal approach, going further in that direction, will exacerbate the problems we're seeing now, not solve them, or at the very least, keep them to a minimum.

Or you could not be an authoritarian and REALLY let people live how they want in the context of their like-minded societies, either way its going to happen, i know mankind's mostly ignorant but if they can overcome religion they can overcome the state.