@kumikochan
The USA hasn't been really capitalist since the 1950's
@Lilith Valentine - On the CIA? What are you on? The CIA is apart of GOVERNMENT not Capitalism
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Capitalism = Race to the top. State doesn`t control citizens. Poorest people are left at the bottom. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer normally.
Expect this isn't even a bit true. EVERYONE gets more richer under capitalism. Hell compare your life to that of 20 years ago. You are much much richer today. Not only do you have more wealth you have more free time then ever before. The really really poor are in the minority.
They are part of the US government and orchestrated several attempts to overthrow Communist governments instate the same systems as the US. This still has quite a bit to do with Capitalism, but I was using it as example to explain that defining one system by it's flaws only opens the other to be defined by it's flaws as well. I was trying to bring it back on topic. It's not a shinning example of my best work and was rather poorly put together, I will give you that.@kumikochan
The USA hasn't been really capitalist since the 1950's
@Lilith Valentine - On the CIA? What are you on? The CIA is apart of GOVERNMENT not Capitalism
Vietnam is doing pretty OK nowadays
USA is also doing good, with its "socialism" based reforms since the 50s. (?)Capitalist-based reforms. China too.
There are people who actually try to help people, despite how the system is. So, it isn't as gloom and doom as he makes it. That said, fixing some of the problems of the system would help a lot too.Again. Agreed. The government needs to work in the interest of the people, whereas our current political system rewards elected officials with a fat pension and no obligation to do anything to help people in a lower tax bracket than themselves
I mean, I feel like we are moving to a social democracy. Just a bit slowly.I disagree tho. I find a social democracy to be the best system in place that brings much more wealth and prosperity to everyone then almost a pure capitalistic system that is in place in the US.
That depends on who you askExpect this isn't even a bit true. EVERYONE gets more richer under capitalism. Hell compare your life to that of 20 years ago. You are much much richer today. Not only do you have more wealth you have more free time then ever before. The really really poor are in the minority.
https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/Expect this isn't even a bit true. EVERYONE gets more richer under capitalism. Hell compare your life to that of 20 years ago. You are much much richer today. Not only do you have more wealth you have more free time then ever before. The really really poor are in the minority.
USA is also doing good, with its "socialism" based reforms since the 50s. (?)
No one follows a pure model, that doesn't work really.
Capitalism concentrates power with a small percentage of wealthy oligarchs, and you end up with the same situation because they control the police/private militaries. Unfettered capitalism leads to dystopia just as quickly as unfettered communism does, which is why you need other influences (like socialism) and rules/regulations to keep capitalism from becoming too heavy-handed in choosing winners and losers.Generally, I agree. Capitalism ultimately concentrates wealth. Communism ultimately concentrates power with the State. Neither is ideal. But in choosing which side gets the thumb on the scale, I definitely prefer limited government.
FTFYThe ONLY system that has ever brought so much wealth and prosperity toeveryoneso few
Even if it was 1 in 10,000, those people are human beings, and nobody should have to choose between starving or letting their kids go hungry, or dying of an easily treatable illness.https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
Just because we have more money doesn't mean we're richer, because you've failed to factor bin increased inflation, cost of living, and compensation for productivity, in favor of an average that is skewed by the people on the top making disgusting amounts of money more than everyone else. And because you said that a "minority" of Americans live in poverty, I want to phrase it in a much more realistic manner: in 2012, roughly one out of every six Americans was living below the poverty line. And that statistic will only grow alongside wage inequality as time continues to pass
So a social democracy basically like is in place in EuropeEven if it was 1 in 10,000, those people are human beings, and nobody should have to choose between starving or letting their kids go hungry, or dying of an easily treatable illness.
The best society would be the one proposed by Socrates - where everyone gets together and works out how it is going to function, then they go to sleep and wake up in a random position in that society. This means all positions have to have their advantages and disadvantages, and nobody gets all the crap while others get all the luxuries.
In reality, a democracy where the majority have a working empathy lobe in their brain (mix of socialism and capitalism perhaps) is the best we can do, I think.
I only partially agree with that (and it seems to me like you've read up on the works of Naomi Klein as well).They are part of the US government and orchestrated several attempts to overthrow Communist governments instate the same systems as the US. This still has quite a bit to do with Capitalism, but I was using it as example to explain that defining one system by it's flaws only opens the other to be defined by it's flaws as well. I was trying to bring it back on topic. It's not a shinning example of my best work and was rather poorly put together, I will give you that.
To be fair, it wasn't really a post I made to be a history lesson, just an example of what it looked like to define another based on it's negative history. All of his posts were simply making a point to point out all the flaws in Communism and declare that as being Communism as a whole. I rebuttal by doing the same with Capitalism to show that the negative aren't the only defining traits. It was pretty poorly thrown together though because I was extremely tired from work.I only partially agree with that (and it seems to me like you've read up on the works of Naomi Klein as well).
The idea Klein outlines best in 'the shock doctrine' (and refers to in her later books) is that capitalism - or at least the free market capitalism version of it - simply cannot survive unless enforced by some sort of militia, and as a co-ordinated response to a public tragedy. In that light, the CIA has meddled in numerous global operations that...well...let's just leave it at "if other countries would do similar things with the USA as target, they'd immediately be labeled terrorists" (you might recall a certain Al-Qaeda rebel group being funded by the CIA before they started doing to the USA what the CIA intended them to do against their local government).
The thing is...the countries that are targeted weren't all communistic. Some had more socialistic forms of leadership, and it wouldn't surprise me if some even adopted capitalism to begin with. The common idea was more that they minimized or even blocked USA's influence more than these liked.