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?

>>132
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.
The land designated for national parks weren't really used all that much to begin with. Having them protected from any future development is not a bad thing.
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.Most of those issues are American-centric, especially the wars. There are coalitions of other nations involved in them as well, but not to the extent that the US is, coupled with its pig-headed nationalism to boot.
I, of course don't agree with #2, either. #3 is just more hand waving, not really an argument. #4 I disagree with. Education is there to protect developing minds from the poisonous memes that can inhibit reasoning and critical thinking (on top of teaching the basics, and whatnot). The kind of stuff mentioned in #5, I don't agree with, either.
-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.
No. I've looked carefully at things, and I've realized that governments can do good for their people, just as they're capable of doing awful things. This wasn't because I was told/taught this, or that this is the way things are. I came to the conclusion, myself, with a thinking brain.
Now you can say statism has "partially" succeeded but that's a subjective standard i would not like to have.
Whatever you say.
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".
Communes are all over the place, and are only a search away. I've found a local one that's being formed a little over 50 miles from where I live. There's no law or regulation on the books that stops people from forming and/or joining one.
"should be"- so you think you should have a say in how an employer spends his money?
When it affects the livelihood of his or her employees, yes I do.
Why do you blame the supplier for supplying what the people WANT.
This may be biased, due to my being slightly misanthropic, but most people are fucking morons, who in fact, really don't know what they want half of the time. If I really didn't give a shit in the most outré manner possible, then sure, everyone can do whatever they liked and not care what it does to the rest of society or someone else. But the fact that I do somewhat give a shit, and the fact that I have to deal with the aforementioned morons, means that things need to be reformed. Health care is high enough, there doesn't need to be more of a burden than there already is (the Fat Head film is not the typical example, full of obesity crankery, not really an argument there).
You really dont know how corporations are products of the state do you?
At this point, it doesn't matter. No matter what country they're in, multinationals will exert their force (as long as it's profitable to do so). They would be McDonald's even in fucking Somalia if it were profitable enough.
If you cant understand that then i REALLY now know you arent an econ major.
Please. You're a twenty-year old uploading videos on YouTube about your no-state theories (you aren't as educated in economics as you pretend to be).
Also, speaking about McDonald's (and other fast food chains), the fact that they now have nutritional information right there on the box (this should have been done a long, long, time ago) makes people think twice about their behavior via a feedback loop. You can read more about that in regards to real-time displays on posted speed-limit signs, and how it changes people's behavior. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/06/ff_feedbackloop/
child abuse is allowed there(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-jg90JNksE) and indoctrination does wonders,
The case with Chinese mothers/parents is a cultural problem, not so much a state one (though, child abuse should of course be dealt with). Countless centuries of being subjected to cultural memes and practices passed down through countless generations and continuing to practice them in a culture (Western) where such parental upbringing is seen as alien and abhorrent. You could make the case of this being the result of at least five decades of loose immigration policies, but that's another symptom of rampant globalization. I'm not against globalization entirely, but some alternative form of it that's not based solely on profit and mindlessly shifting labor, goods, and people about.

I didn't mention PRC as one of the countries, the only Asian country I mentioned was Japan. Perhaps Japanese kids undergo similar parenting, I don't know.
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.
Ah, testing. The never-ending trumpet card that is always being shouted to improve education in the US, which bring me to my next point:
Because the Education system in the U.S. is not free market?
The education systems of the countries that I mentioned aren't free market, either. Not by a long shot. West Virginia, is attempting to emulate some of the educational reforms that Finland used that has their education system now often ranked number 1 in the world. Very good article and video about that. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/29/education.wv.finland/index.html They also completely eliminated their standardized testing, and measure success of teachers and students by more sane, sensible, and efficient means.
All forms of teaching still are FORCED to abide by the state standard which i would NOT call free by any means.
The results of Finland and other countries that don't lag far behind it in education speak for themselves. At the end of the day, Finnish students (most of them) will probably end up voting for the Social Democrats come next election, as a way of saying "Thanks for continuing to maintain one of the world's best education systems". To say this is violent coercion is truly stretching the definitions of those words.
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.
No need to shout, we're not animals here.
ITS NOT LIBERTARIANISM, its Anti Statism/Anarcho Capitalism/
I'm aware of the differences, but they're all just theories.
im sympathetic towards libretarianism because they seek a smaller gov but they are still statist.
Okay.
Its not all right, im indifferent and tolerant of libertarian socialism(aka vanilla anarchy, mutualism, and anarcho syndicalism.
Libertarian socialism, that's what Chomsky supports. I've never really cared too much about Chomsky's political views beyond what he wrote about various CIA-backed coups (attempted and successful) and how corporate media acts as a propaganda device. Another nice little theory that's good for kicking the ol' peanut around.
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.
Labour was less authoritarian back in the early 70s and 80s. How they are today is not the same party they were back then. Hence why they're colloquially known as "New Labour". Not terribly much difference between the mainline parties. The Lib Dems I guess are still a decent party. It would be nice if the US had a multi-party system, too.