Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Fuck Capitalism

Name: blindpig 2011-08-23 10:03

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?

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-16 5:22

Calm down.

I'm sure you just watched "fight club" or something and now think it's "sick" to mock capitalism, the thing is capitalism only seems worse because it allows people to see it's flaws and criticise them, the very act of attempting to fault capitalism only makes it stronger.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-16 6:29

we need a balance between both capitalism and socialism. you shouldn't be starving because you made a few mistakes, nor should you not be able to reap the rewards that the free market offers. but in every market if someone is rich, someone is poor.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-16 9:18

>>202
I hate to discuss semantics but socialism is a highly politicized term...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism
capitalism is as well I suppose but capitalism was never an ideology like socialism, unless you think a few Ayn Rand worshipping wingnuts constitute an ideology.

This belief that there is a continuum between socialism and capitalism is a highly flawed perspective, from the practical perspective socialism is an ideology which has effects very different from it's theoretically perfect utopia, it could not be more distant from the notions of "cooperation verus competition" or "bureaucracy versus free enterprise" that you might want to use to simplify a large number of government policy decisions.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-17 23:48

>>203
Socialism is Communism before they take your guns away.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-09 18:56

>>186
The US has BEEN socialistic already, the only thing keeping us from becoming a communist state is the corporatism which i perfer WAY more than the former, not that it says much because its like choosing to cut your finger instead of your hand.
Ah, Americans. Always using hyperbole and terms that don't understand to make their point.

Name: K-M 2011-11-09 19:08

Name: K-M 2011-11-09 19:20

I'll give a gold star to somebody, if this person reads the previous article completely .

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-09 21:13

Socialism is the only way to make people equal. Equally poor that is.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-11 9:57

>>40
"Society also benefits from regulations. Safety regulations make sure that the ham on your sandwich is safe (though the US could do with tighter regulations on food)"

The FDA does not give 2 shits about your ham sandwich. ("It could do with TIGHTER REGULATION" is the knife in your own back.) You want tighter regulation? They'd love a chance to tax you more, so Tyson can pay off the Lobbyists to pass their shitty meat into costco. Do you know how much money is poured into the FDA each year? It's become an extremely rich orgy with Bureaucrats paid for by huge drug and food companies. The food and drug companies essentially WRITE the legistlation. All safe under the guise of legality perpetuated by statist thought.
Off the top of my head, companies in a free market could prove to consumers that their meat was safe by conducting reputable private company tests. Or, retail food stores could only accept meat that has gone through sufficient testing. Bam,I just created thousands of FREE MARKET jobs for the private sector (inspection companies).  Why in the hell are we paying millions to bureaucrats and lobbyists to keep us SAFE, when they are the exact reason for companies like MONSANTO

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-11 12:25

>>209
Sure... just like how those bond rating agencies did such a good job protecting us from the financial crisis.

Private companies have demonstrated time and time again that when push comes to shove they only care about one thing. Making money. If you give them the responsibility of regulating something, they will only do what's right if it happens to be profitable. Profit is their entire reason for existing. Government's reason for existing is to protect its people.

retail food stores could only accept meat that has gone through sufficient testing...
Great. Until the industry figures out that doing cheaper tests and letting some bad meat go through saves more money than the resulting lawsuits cost.

Name: >>40 2011-11-11 21:38

>>209
FDAMONSANTO
I'll readily admit that the FDA as it stands needs reform, and this is also a big reason why I support whistleblowers when even government doesn't regulate things correctly. Dismantling government and regulatory agencies is not the answer. Also what >>210 said.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-12 5:55

>>210
>>211
1 private company heavily influenced and regulated by the state failed therefore 100% of private companies are failures and the free market is worse than state planning 100% of the time

When a private company fails it becomes obvious quickly (enron's scandal was discovered by the market, not government regulators) and usually the capitalist system facilitates it's decline with the company downsizing or liquidating depending on the nature of the problem.

When a government institution fails it's far easier to cover up or excuse and if a flaw ever surfaces it usually only results in a resignation and some token reforms, sometimes it results in more funding ostensibly because the insitution failed due to lack of funding.

To be quiet honest Monsanto should be givn free reign to do whatever they want, genetic modification is the future and the best thing for concscious life is to advance technology as quickly as possible. You obviously don't have your priorities straight if you think some communist revolution will solve everything. We need to help corporations like this advance science.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-12 10:23

>>212

When a private company fails it becomes obvious quickly...
Really? How many Enrons do you think there are that got away Scott free? How about PG&E? They gave people cancer for years before they got caught. Once you make money the only force driving things people get fucked.

1 private company heavily influenced and regulated by the state failed therefore 100% of private companies are failures and the free market is worse than state planning 100% of the time
Don't be retarded. I never said that.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-15 2:46

>>213
Enrons
Many Enrons get away scot free, the state is pretty much handing taxpayer dollars to banks through bailouts and quantitative easing at this point.

PG&E
They failed to prevent PG&E from dumping carcinogens into groundwater and they've still failed to ban sodium nitrate. Open to alternatives yet?

Don't be retarded. I never said that.
Don't be retarded. I know you never said that, I was just illustrating the limitations of your example there. The point is to take a pace back and look at the bigger picture right here. Easy credit has a highly visible positive effect on well publicized businesses while having an indirect and greater negative impact on the rest of the economy, these financial privileges have to pass through a few select banks before they reach individuals and businesses which means most people will never have the opportunity to gain the same returns on their savings that Buffets and Soroses have no matter how well researched their investments, it also means Goldman Sachses have the leg room to speculate and invest in things like Enron based on their previous stock performance rather than economics. With no state sanctioned monopolies or cartels the market for capital would be highly competitive with little room for the speculation pyramid schemes depend on and stock traders and banks would get to this point quicker.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/13/news/companies/enronoriginal_fortune/index.htm?postversion=2006011818

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-16 2:36

It's time for #opG.Sachs

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-16 8:23

>>208

Money is only worth as much as what it can be compared to. If there are no poor or middle class people for the rich to be compared to, the rich are no longer rich.

So yes, everyone being "poor" is better than the fucked up status quo.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-16 8:25

>>199

So where the fuck is all of their crime and unemployment?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-16 18:47

>>216
>"So yes, everyone being "poor" is better than the fucked up status quo."
pretty much sums up the socialist viewpoint; they'll rather have mass poverty and starvation than to see someone do better than them, because heaven forbid somebody actually work hard and earn a decent living rather than sit around and ask for free handouts

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-16 20:02

>So yes, everyone being "poor" is better than the fucked up status quo.

The middle class might want to discuss this with you. It might be a bit painful for you. You need to stop hanging out at the OWS tard fests. No, really.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-16 21:42

they'll rather have mass poverty and starvation than to see someone do better than them
delusional strawman faggotry detected

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-17 19:04

>>216
Wouldn't it be better if everyone were middle class? Middle classes generally invest in mutual funds and keep healthy bank balances, is that not "owning the means of production"? If everyone were middle class wouldn't that fulfil the socialist objective of the masses owning the means of production?

Or isn't that good enough for you? Are you going to continue to insist the means of production are owned "collectively" through some socialist political party because the idea of allowing someone individual freedom is offensive to you?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-17 20:45

During the Cold War all of the great American achievements weren't done by its private companies, but by its government. GO CAPITALISM! TAKE THAT COMMIES!

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-17 20:46

Get your head out of your ass. We don't live in a meritocracy. There is no such thing as giving yourself a promotion.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-17 20:52

>>44

Which is why it's nowhere in the Constitution.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-17 20:55

>>221
Increase the nation's wealth. Increase the quality of living. Create more non-government jobs. Eliminate the need for people to be dependent on the government.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-17 20:55

>>75

Two days after the United States announced its intention to launch an artificial satellite, on July 31, 1956, the Soviet Union announced its intention to do the same. Sputnik 1 was launched on October 4, 1957, beating the United States and stunning people all over the world.

The Soviet space program pioneered many aspects of space exploration:

    1957: First intercontinental ballistic missile, the R-7 Semyorka
    1957: First satellite, Sputnik 1
    1957: First animal in Earth orbit, the dog Laika on Sputnik 2
    1959: First rocket ignition in Earth orbit, first man-made object to escape Earth's gravity, Luna 1
    1959: First data communications, or telemetry, to and from outer space, Luna 1.
    1959: First man-made object to pass near the Moon, first man-made object in Heliocentric orbit, Luna 1
    1959: First probe to impact the Moon, Luna 2
    1959: First images of the moon's far side, Luna 3
    1960: First animals to safely return from Earth orbit, the dogs Belka and Strelka on Sputnik 5.
    1961: First probe launched to Venus, Venera 1
    1961: First person in space (International definition) and in Earth orbit, Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1, Vostok programme
    1961: First person to spend over 24 hours in space Gherman Titov, Vostok 2 (also first person to sleep in space).
    1962: First dual manned spaceflight, Vostok 3 and Vostok 4
    1962: First probe launched to Mars, Mars 1
    1963: First woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, Vostok 6
    1964: First multi-person crew (3), Voskhod 1
    1965: First extra-vehicular activity (EVA), by Aleksei Leonov, Voskhod 2
    1965: First probe to hit another planet of the Solar system (Venus), Venera 3
    1966: First probe to make a soft landing on and transmit from the surface of the moon, Luna 9
    1966: First probe in lunar orbit, Luna 10
    1967: First unmanned rendezvous and docking, Cosmos 186/Cosmos 188. (Until 2006, this had remained the only major space achievement that the US had not duplicated.)
    1969: First docking between two manned craft in Earth orbit and exchange of crews, Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5
    1970: First soil samples automatically extracted and returned to Earth from another celestial body, Luna 16
    1970: First robotic space rover, Lunokhod 1 on the Moon.
    1970: First data received from the surface of another planet of the Solar system (Venus), Venera 7
    1971: First space station, Salyut 1
    1971: First probe to reach surface and make soft landing on Mars, Mars 2
    1975: First probe to orbit Venus, to make soft landing on Venus, first photos from surface of Venus, Venera 9
    1980: First Hispanic and Black person in space, Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez on Soyuz 38
    1984: First woman to walk in space, Svetlana Savitskaya (Salyut 7 space station)
    1986: First crew to visit two separate space stations (Mir and Salyut 7)
    1986: First probes to deploy robotic balloons into Venus atmosphere and to return pictures of a comet during close flyby Vega 1, Vega 2
    1986: First permanently manned space station, Mir, 1986–2001, with permanent presence on board (1989–1999)
    1987: First crew to spend over one year in space, Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov on board of Soyuz TM-4 - Mir

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-17 20:56

DO YOU KNOW WHO WAS COMPETING WITH THE SOVIET UNION? IT WAS THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, THE STATE! NOT "THE FREE MARKET".

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-17 20:58

>>80

How has Russia been today?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-17 21:00

A globalist capitalist's solution to starving people is to send them McDonald's burgers.

A socialist's solution is to send them seeds and agricultural consultants.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-17 21:01

>>116

^

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-17 21:05

>>125

So how the fuck is anti-statism "conservative"?

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-17 21:57

I thought this place would be dead because of /pol/

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-18 14:43

>>232
You thought wrong nigger.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-18 19:08

>>233
great one liner

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-19 21:00

>>81
They are essentially the same thing, the social democracy pushes the communist cancer with the open approval of gullible brainwashed school age sorts and all the hordes of non-whites living on welfare.
Massive third world immigration has never been part and parcel of any "communist state" that's ever existed. Even the former Soviet Union didn't have a program of such; the only non-whites in the Soviet Union were from populations of the central Asian republics, and Muslim migrants from the pre-Soviet days centuries ago. Oh, and also the occasional African black Marxists who would study in Soviet universities and then go back to their own countries as political agitators.

In summation, you have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to critique left-wing politics, at least know what the fuck you're talking about in the first place, not from what some dipshit told you on Stormfront/VNN/whateverforumyouusethisweek

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-19 21:29

>>235

Exactly. Capitalism and globalization are responsible for the mass exodus of peoples from one country to another. Not socialism or communism.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-19 21:38

>>236
So we should all go communism? Derp.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-19 23:23

>>237
Well, this is where the bullshit semantics come into play. Some form of statism and protectionism is required to protect domestic people and domestic markets. Does it have to follow every tenet of Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto? Of course not, will it coincidentally follow some of the tenets? Yes.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-20 5:13

>>238
What tenets? Before you answer consider the fact that Marx often redefined the obvious (rich people own more things) or made invalid assertions (working smart isn't real work) and so in either case it's innocuous to claim you are following his tenets.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-20 11:39

>>9
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Corporatism
>"system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest."
...which is going to happen whether there's a state or not, and thereby I reckon the word you're looking for is "fascism" instead of "corporatism."
Q.E.D.:
>Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism. Corporate social interaction is common within kinship groups such as families, clans and ethnicities. Aside from humans, certain animal species are known to exhibit strong corporate social organization, such as penguins.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List