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?

>>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".