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?

Fuck Unions who WANT 25.00 an hour wages for all workers.

25.00 dollars an hour,in a world with a Globalized economeny.
A world with 00.25 an hour wage is possible.

Ya American worker is so going to fucking going compete with China worker!

>>40
Free market advocates tend to go down to theological-like arguments, so that has quite many similar aspects to religion as well. Nearly ever free market advocate/libertarian/anti-statist I've ran into were either soft non-theists, or moderate theists.

Thats not an argument.

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), and that the Nuclear power plant 5 miles down the road from you isn't going to unexpectedly blow up (again, the US could do with tighter regulations there as well).

Thats nice, but you didn't address my point about it hurting small businesses who have no choice to opt whether they want it.
Regulation can come from within the market, it doesn't always have to be from a government. Government regulation has failed in the past with examples such as GM and a certain asprin company who lobbied for regulations for upcoming companies and bypassed them to get into the market easier. If the FDA and the EPA were private companies who's job was to regulate and people heard about these violations then companies would take their business elsewhere to a better "regulation" company.

It's quite a stretch to suggest that sane regulations that make sure food is safe, and that your immediate surroundings don't become obliterated by a nuclear holocaust equate to "violence".

When people are "forced" to subsidize them then yes they are backed by a threat of violence if you dont help.
Again you try to strawman me by implying i am against the services themselves, for what i am really against is there being an illegitimate monopoly on these things and people forced to pay for them or face losing their homes and if they defend their homes then they probably get shot or killed, you dont see that your "government regulations" are backed by a threat, a gun, violence.


The only historical example that I can think of immediately might be the Icelandic Commonwealth. Then again, most of the Middle Ages comprised of shitty weak to non-existent governments, or rule by God-thumping mad monarchs. Today, of course, is not the Middles Ages, and both are anachronisms of their times.

Okay and we still managed to survive so far, so governments and religious ideologies weren't needed.

What's also interesting is that you keep harping on against the state, when the US government facilitated what later became the Internet we all love and use (DARPA) and the World Wide Web, CERN, which is funded by many European countries as well as the US. Without such, our conversation may never had been possible.

Short answer: If the U.S. didn't do it private companies would have.
Long answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbR4cjA-Few

Also saying that the State helped develop the internet is not an argument for the state you are trying to lead this conversation in a different direction.

But alas i dont really see the point of continuing to respond, if you cant see the state for what it really is due to some "dogma" then i wont change your mind.

>>42
Thats not an argument.
Religion and free market/libertarian/antistatist theology also have parallels with each other. So there's a correlation, there at least.
Thats nice, but you didn't address my point about it hurting small businesses who have no choice to opt whether they want it.
What would you define as a "small business", in the first place? What a government defines one as? Your own personal criteria?
Regulation can come from within the market, it doesn't always have to be from a government.
Proof?
Government regulation has failed in the past with examples such as GM and a certain asprin company who lobbied for regulations for upcoming companies and bypassed them to get into the market easier.
This is where I would partially agree with you. My argument is, is that regulations are in principle, a good thing. The issue with them is, is how exactly they're used and employed. A world without government regulation would be hell, a world with improperly employed and executed regulations would be no better.

Another thing with regulations and such, is that they're sometimes dictated by emotion and political uproar, and not scientifically investigated, evaluated and test-run before execution. For that, "internal" regulations keeping the whims of the general politic away from such matters are also necessary. On top of that, I would also make sure the whole process is completely transparent, and the media, and the general public can view the data for themselves (in real time, preferably in this day and age).
So, in short, I agree with some of your criticisms, but unlike you, I'm not going to throw the whole baby with the bathwater.
When people are "forced" to subsidize them then yes they are backed by a threat of violence if you dont help.
The people who feel "forced" are also free to leave the country and find dirt cheap land in some shitty third-world country that barely (if it does) have a "state". There they can create their own communes and governance without having to worry about a "state" interrupting their little fun. Last I checked, freedom of movement is still a huge aspect of the EU and most parts of the Western world (and that inclues movement OUT OF IT).
Okay and we still managed to survive so far
Last I checked, I'm not of Icelandic descent, and most likely neither were any of my ancestors. The Icelandic Commonwealth is only one example. So to slip "we" in there is a bit incongruous on your part. The Icelandic people of those times also didn't have to worry about things like damage to the environment, modern technology, or large scale agriculture in order to accomplish their daily activities.
and religious ideologies weren't needed.
That I certainly will drink to.
Short answer: If the U.S. didn't do it private companies would have.
Again, this is the black and white worldview that you are ascribing to. Private sector, government and also academia are mutually beneficial to one another, and when they combine their funding and efforts, is hugely beneficial to society.
Long answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbR4cjA-Few4:11-4:18 — "As it turned out, ARPANET, the X.25 networks, and Usenet, formed the original backbone networks of the Internet."
If you're going to criticize government facilitation (yes, FACILITATION, not sole development, like the misleading title of your video implies) in respect to the early development of the Internet, at least know what you're talking about and have the history correct. Usenet was created by two Duke University students in 1979, and ARPANET (and the early Internet) was already pretty well "backboned" (for lack of a better term) by that time. The big motivation for the creation of Usenet, is the fact that back then like now e-mail is quite limiting when you wish to discuss a topic with multiple people.
5:47-5:52 — "Imagine trying to create a new protocol, you'd basically be creating a whole new Internet"
*Facepalm* The creation of HTTP, Gopher, IRC, BitTorrent, et al. didn't make some fundamentally brand new Internet! And TCP/IP is used nowadays, because as technology caught up to the standard, any perceived problems with TCP/IP were rendered moot. It wasn't simply just because LOL EVREEUNE WAS USIN EET!, it was a truly superior protocol (at the time, anyway).

Also saying that the State helped develop the internet is not an argument for the state
It is an argument for the state, because simply it helped contribute to the development of the Internet. That's like saying that academia shouldn't get any credit, either, for helping to develop the Internet as well.
you are trying to lead this conversation in a different direction.
No, I've been quite consistent in my argument, and it makes you nervous, because possibly, you may be having second thoughts about the ideology you hold near and dear.
if you cant see the state for what it really is due to some "dogma"
Dogma!? Ha! At one point in the video you said something like (too tired to bother looking up the exact time)
"The free market works this is how it's done, end of story".
Sounds quite a lot like
"I am God, this is how things are done, do not question it!"
And yet, you have the gall to tell other people that they're clinging to some "dogma".

capitalism is the foundation of america so i suggest you quit talking smack you comi nigger

No, I've been quite consistent in my argument, and it makes you nervous, because possibly, you may be having second thoughts about the ideology you hold near and dear.

You know what? fine. lets continue with statism, continue the wars, continue the poverty, continue the imprisonment, continue the torture, continue the abuse, continue the brutality, continue the genosides. Because you are obviously worried that COMPARED TO ALL OF THESE THINGS you care more of what some market COULD do.
At least if a private company did all these things it would be shunned and brought to the ground but when its the "U.S. GOVERNMENT" OH HOLY SHIT!!! GREATER GOOD HERP DERP DOESNT BOTHER ME HERP DERP!!!

And the funny thing is that even then statism still fails marketwise. If being trillions in debt and the high percentage of unemployment doesnt prove that then you know what?
Fuck you.

>>43
Give me 1 example where a state has not superseded its "constitution" within the first 20 years since its inception.

>>43
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16DueNM9ySA
Checkmate

I agree, we need Communism in this country!
Kill anyone who disagrees, or 85 percent of the total population!

>>47
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irrelevantvideoofaretardedasiankidgettingrapedbyniggers
Checkmate

>>49
Classy

>>44

Which is why the word capitalism is nowhere in the Constitution. Brainwashed greedy Jew-dick sucking faggot.

>>50
Not as classy as posting a video that doesn't address your opponent's points in lieu of an actual argument and then saying "checkmate."

>>52
If he cares more about the market than human life then i doubt people will take his arguments seriously. Not saying its "wrong" but i doubt he will get many supporters...Still i wonder how many people have to die till statism becomes either obsolete or successful for him....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

>>45
This implies that I agree with those things (I don't). Once again, black and white worldview. My political leanings would be pretty close to social democrats in Europe. We agree on many things, but where we differ most is that unlike you, I know that the free market isn't the solution to fucking everything. It's not some silver bullet that can cure all of society's ills.

>>47
That video doesn't address any of my points, and I'm quite aware that several past presidents have been shit, including the current one.

>>55
Describe in summary the major entities where you believe a free market would be inimical to good social order.

>>56
For one, information asymmetry is a big reason why a lemon car market exists (and other things of a technical nature). A for-profit health care system generally makes people do rash things, not out of evil or contempt, but out of stark rationalizations that they would not have otherwise, because that behavior is a product of it being for profit, not vague notions of "greed", "evil", etc.

I'm not against free markets in certain things, the Internet being a big one. Governments should largely be kept out of that, with maybe the exception to regulate the ISPs to prevent consumer fraud (Net Neutrality), and things of that nature. For the US, specifically, I'm a bit concerned about the FCC going about doing that since they're so tight-assed with regulations regarding television content (in comparison to other countries' equivalents to the FCC), that I wouldn't want to see carried over to ISPs and the Internet in general. We could also do with some tighter environmental and nuclear power plant regulations (and I've been suggesting that even before the earthquake in Japan).

>>55
see
>>53

>>58
Already did. Simply hand waving about "statism" isn't an argument.

>>59
"avoiding the question"
How many people have to die? Its a simple question you know.
Forget the economics you can be right all you want but how many people have to die till statism works for you?
I think people would like to know this, or at least the ones who will be slaughtered by it.

You see until you can go up to people and actually tell them that you want them to be sacrificed in the name of your "statist" progress your words dont mean shit to me and may not mean anything to anyone else, so put your money where your mouth is and answer the question and if you cant, then why not?

I mean surely a system with SO MUCH EMPIRICISM shouldn't be to hard to defend from such a claim right? I mean there must be some good reason as to why millions of people get killed or imprisoned due to it.

>>60
Eat a cock. That's obviously a loaded question.

I have no idea what you people are arguing about. I'm 100% sure that 99.9% of all of humanity has no idea what statism is.

I avoid 'isms' in general.

>>1
Perfect example of saying little in many words.

Communism and Capitalism are both bad for the white race.

>>54
>>54
>>54
>>54
>>54
>>54
>>54
This OP

Fuck greed.

Capitalists openly brags about being evil and greedy yet through mass hypnosis they've won the support of most of the upper, middle, and lower classes in most developed nations. The wealthy support the system because they obviously want to protect their excessive and usurped assets which they are convinced they earned fairly and know they can lose at any time. The middle class who know the system is bullshit support because they hope and strive for that unlikely promotion and continue subscribing to the de facto status quo because anything else would temporarily drop their standard of living. The working class support it simply from ignorance. They are grateful for what little they have and are extremely suspicious of change especially if it's contrary to what the public schools and media have convinced them is "the American way".

The American middle class will vanish in a puff of capitalist laughter. This cannot be stopped. Trying to stop it will be futile. So align your expectations properly.

>>67
The US isn't capitalist, it's corporatist.

The wealthy support it because it offers them special privileges and prevents the middle class from competing.

Middle and lower classes like you support it because you think capitalism is the problem and don't understand the omnipresent nature of corruption.

This thread is liberal dog shit.
Get a job losers.

The free market works. Communism\Socialism doesn't. Greed is just a word libcunts use when they want something you have but don't won't to work for it or earn it. 

The free market created the middle class. Leftwingers want to make all of us equally poor while they get to make the rules that they won't live under themselves.

Lets not live in a welfare nanny state, kids. We can be better than that.

>>71
You have a very distorted view of how the rest of the world works. I suggest some traveling to gain some new experiences.

>>72
Right on, because we all know how successful Scientific Marxism-Leninism has been in Russia, and Poland, and the DDR, and Bulgaria, and Rumania, and Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, and North Korea, and Cuba, and Zimbabwe, and...

>>73

Are you seriously dismissing all the technological and scientific advances the Soviet Union made (albeit the United States were also making them and they were competing)? Also most of those countries weren't particularly wealthy or successful before they implemented socialist governments.

As for Cuba and this luxurious casino paradise image it had in the 1950s under Fulgencio Batista. That façade only existed for tourists because peasants and proletarians were suffering.

>Are you seriously dismissing all the technological and scientific advances the Soviet Union made

They stole most of them from the US.

>>73
Affirming the Consequent fallacy. If he's a communist, then he supports social democracy. Hey, he support social democracy. So, he is a communist.
You're conflating social democracy/democratic socialism with communism (especially Marxist derived communism). Social Democratic parties generally reject Marxism in its entirety, and they support a mixed economy which has the best of both capitalism and socialism.

>>73
Most of the US vs. Soviet Union cold war nonsense was just political sideshow. Both collaborated with each other more than anyone would like to admit.

Excuse me, dear communists out there, I'm trying to start into communism and I'd like to understand the hate between Stalinists and Trotskysts. Why do Stalinists say Trotskysm is not real communism when Stalinism is nearer to Fascism? I don't see how supressing the working class and creating a burocratized state is somehow communist. May you help me, elder comrades, please?

>>77
Just get into libertarian socialism, its all the left you want just without all the bad statism.

You all have valid arguments, maybe I can shed some light on this.

I oppose socialism and social democracy while sharing a similar perspective to socialists, the problem is social welfare doesn't work nearly as much as progressives claim and capitalist societies aren't nearly as capitalist as they think either. The truth is we lean too heavily towards statism and corporatism which is the real root cause of the rise of 1920s style banksters and other chronic problems that we consider normal because they've been around for so long, if we actually were free market capitalist we would probably be looking at an upper-middle class competing away the obscene incomes of the top 0.01% super-rich while the lower and middle class benefit from the better managed economy according to the old adage "a rising tide floats all boats".

That said I don't believe there is a continuum between state planning and free markets, after all you need to preserve property rights and preserve the socio-economic conditions that allow preserve property rights to be preserved which will ultimately result in some coercion here and there, of course nothing is perfect either. State intervention can be good or bad for the free market and promoting the general welfare of the people, it's the exact nature of this intervention that matters.

The soviet union did achieve a lot technologically, the thing is they weren't socialist and they would have achieved more if they loosened restrictions on state planning.