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?

>>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.