Down with captalism

[Blackroseoni]

I think the captalistic market and attitude is a major factor in the evil commited in the world. Its a promotion of the rich and powerful and keeps the poor...well...poor so to speak. I'm a self proclaimed socialist, because I belive it is a way to promote both understanding and tolerance in a society. Take canada, they rock. Whilst the united States...well....*laughs8 I don't think I need to go into in depth. Basically we have a rich cowboy as the president, enough said.

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]Well, i'm a Fascist.

So, we wont see eye to eye anyway. *walks out of the area*[/color]

[Semjaza]

You're both weird. That's all I have to say :p

[James]

[color=#808080]I agree. I'd also say that there's probably very little understanding of what socialism and fascism represent.

In any case, I'm not sure whether or not this thread will actually create any kind of legitimate discussion. Blackroseoni, you certainly didn't post well with your opening comments. Rather than bring up a question and discuss your views, you basically took a simple swipe at President Bush and did absolutely nothing to support your views.

At the very least, it would have been appropriate to provide more detail in your post about why you hold a particular viewpoint.

Anyway, I'll respond relatively briefly here.

If you think Canada is a socialist country, you don't know what socialism means. Canada is a capitalistic society in the same vein as the United States, UK, Japan, Australia and many others. The only difference is that Canada is more welfare-oriented than the United States.

It's said that the United States has the worst welfare system in the developed world. I can't comment on that, because I don't live there. I live in a country that is considered to take a highly robust approach to welfare.

Having said that, socialism (and communism, which tends to invariably tie in, whether deliberate or not) wouldn't be able to provide such a system. In Australian society (and in society in Canada, the USA, UK, etc etc), the high income earners tend to pay the vast majority of the nation's tax. And how do the rich become that way? Via strong education and via a system that doesn't restrict one's personal ownership and entrepreneurial spirit.

Obviously, that's more of an extreme socialist society (like the former USSR). But generally speaking, there are few "truly" socialist societies that function well. Socialism tends to breed more control with the Government...and therefore, less personal freedoms for individuals.

I think that a balance must be sought. On the one hand, you can allow people to have aspirations and to gain personal wealth. On the other, these people [i]should[/i] pay higher tax (as they can obviously afford it) and that should be used to "pull up" those members of society who are struggling.

So it's all about priorities. In Australia, we have a very significant welfare system. You could almost call that "socialist", in a sense. However, we are also a capitalist economy. And we are a nation with great personal freedom (though not [i]so[/i] much freedom that we can carry guns in our backpacks, etc). I think we have struck a good balance, as evidenced by the extremely high living standard, education standard and economic conditions.

Of course, I could go on and on about that. But I just wanted to summarise my views I guess.

Basically though, I find that a LOT of kids go around talking about socialism, communism, etc etc...as if it's "cool". But in reality, they have no idea what they're talking about. These very people would be the first to complain if they truly lived in a fascist society, for example. It's very easy to say stuff that sounds cool from the relative comfort of a nation where you have free speech (and I think most OB members live in nations with free speech). But if that very speech were quelled - and if personal liberties began to erode, the story would be very different.

Anyway, I'm rambling. My post doesn't specifically cover your original post, simply because I'm not going to get into any kind of silly name calling of world leaders. It's immature and it doesn't help one's argument. And certainly, it's worth putting more thought behind your submissions in future.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

Capitalism has its place in the world; in fact most things that end in "ism" that have a political orientation have a place and relevant purpose. In my view anyway. And that's about all I have to say on that.

As for James post... That budget last night basically makes parts of your post a bit silly. Mainly in the respect of Healthcare and Education, I'm not going to rant on about "The 30% increase is bad for the poor people!" because I think that anyone who is smart enough will realise that no university in their right minds would up their prices 30%. But they will rise them sum what. This is bad for people who aren?t as well off. I'm rather annoyed at that because affording uni atm will be very hard let alone any increase...
(Sorry about above, I just wanted to rant about that because I'm really pissed at the situation.)

Eps ? Grr?

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]
As for James post... That budget last night basically makes parts of your post a bit silly. Mainly in the respect of Healthcare and Education, I'm not going to rant on about "The 30% increase is bad for the poor people!" because I think that anyone who is smart enough will realise that no university in their right minds would up their prices 30%. But they will rise them sum what. This is bad for people who aren?t as well off. I'm rather annoyed at that because affording uni atm will be very hard let alone any increase...
(Sorry about above, I just wanted to rant about that because I'm really pissed at the situation.)

Eps ? Grr? [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#808080]No, the 2003-4 budget does not make [i]any[/i] of my post "a bit silly".

My post was referring to the fact that Australia (per capita, based on worldwide standards) invests more money into areas such as health, education and welfare services than most (if not all) other developed nations. Firstly, I'm talking about this on a per capita basis and secondly, I'm comparing Australia to the rest of the world on that very basis.

Any increase or reduction in University fees is essentially irrelevant and bears no real relationship with what I was talking about.

I could of course get into more specifics here; like the increased funding for public hospitals in this budget as well as the incentives for the states regarding both healthcare and education (Federal grants based on state investments). But I won't bother. I'm a bit worried that you might make more inaccurate links between my post and the budget. ~_^[/color]

[Lady Macaiodh]

[color=darkblue]James, I was wondering what exactly you meant by "welfare." I'm trying to figure out if it's the same thing in Australia as it is here.[/color]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo] Although I am not Bush?s fondest supporter, I am not foolish or naïve enough to blame him for our horrendous welfare system. America has not had a decent welfare or health care system since the 1940?s. And, although I am smack dab in the middle when it comes to party politics, I tend to blame the left for our horrendous situation.

Many democrats, and republicans, feel that by mimicking Australia and Canada, the US will find a solution to our welfare and healthcare troubles. Unfortunately that solution is doomed to fail. America is substantially larger than either country and our current system is already FUBAR. Forcing the national government to solve these problems is neither practical or smart.

I think that the only feasible way to reconstruct our welfare and healthcare system is to completely start over, rebuilding from the state level with specific government guidelines. I think that we may have a better chance of incorporating some of Canada?s and Australia?s system as well as creating a strong, capitalistic based health care system.
[/color]

[DeathKnight]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#808080]I'd also say that there's probably very little understanding of what socialism and fascism represent.
[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=crimson]Yes. There is very little understanding, its basically a way to be popular here- People saying they are 'communist' or 'fascist' generally dont even know where fascism was born, or who first came up with the theories of socialism. So I deal with alot of ignorant people tossing around political theorums so they can appear to be a bad *ss.

Silly world.[/color]

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathKnight [/i]
[B][color=crimson]Yes. There is very little understanding, its basically a way to be popular here- People saying they are 'communist' or 'fascist' generally dont even know where fascism was born, or who first came up with the theories of socialism. So I deal with alot of ignorant people tossing around political theorums so they can appear to be a bad *ss.

Silly world.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Speaking of which, "I'm an anarchist" has to have become one of the most meaningless phrases ever, purely due to the majority of people who claim to be. On the most part they're not anarchists. Like you say, it just sounds cool to most of them.

So yeah. I think that's kind of an agreement with what you said.

(of course, there are true anarchists too (which I'm not) but most are just kids that want to look like troublemakers)

[DeathKnight]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Deus Ex Machina [/i]
[B](of course, there are true anarchists too (which I'm not) but most are just kids that want to look like troublemakers) [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=crimson]I think honestly Anarchy has to be instated without alot of violence, or 'troublemakeing'- It is, technically, supposed to be the ultimate form of human cooperation without any sort of upper authority, right? So how would violence be cooperation? Anarchists originally werent troublemakers at all, I believe that it was supposed to be extremely peaceful at first..

At least, if I remember that book right.

But people take that out of context and focus on 'no authority' and instantly think "Hey, I dont like Authority. I'm an anarchist."

And thusly more idiots are born.

Feel free to correct me on the first paragraph, my memory is sort of sketchy.[/color]

[Justin]

If people were perfect, socialism would be the way to go. However, people aren't perfect. Through my own reasoning and an study into history, I've pretty much reached the conclusion that socialism is pointless.

There will always be 'haves' and 'have-nots', there is no escaping that. Someone must control things, and, as we know, power corrupts.

Also, let's try to keep this civil. Resorting to petty swipes at a man you don't know any more than I do is a really pitiful way to support your views.

-Justin

[EcCenTriC fairy]

I'm with socialism. Though I agree, Justin, that socialism would be the only way if society were perfect, most people are law-abiding citizens and that helps boost the socialist ways, if you get what I'm saying.
And anarchy? That aggravates me - anarchy is a pointless, imaginary idea. There is no way the earth would survive with no rule.

[Sara]

[size=1]I think Ken's right on the anarchy thing.

I've got a friend/schoolmate who really supports the idea of anarchy. Some of it is standard [i]tick off the principal[/i] stuff, but he does know what he's talking about. When he bothers. ^_~

He's a very interesting person.[/size]

[Transtic Nerve]

Well everyone has to have something, and America got capitalism.

The only reason socialism is so looked down upon is because of the communists. Everyone thinks evil when you think communism, and socialism is right around the corner from that so naturally, anyone who doesn't know anything, which is 80% of the world, would naturally think socialism is evil.

America was built on the free right.... that in money and business terms is capitalism. But since we realize that caitalism isn't all it's cracked up to be, and that ultimate freedom in the business industry equals complete anarchy, we've (the American government) cut down on it. This is why we have anti-trust laws. To stop complete capitalism, to give the little guys a chance.

American won't become socialist for the main reason that it was and has been so against that thought for so many years. I believe there is ONE socialist program still in use today in America. It's a dam somewhere in Tennessee somewhere I believe. Or something like that. Everything else that has been "socialized" has been shut down or abandoned. I believe that thing in Tenessee gains alot of profit for the government, they decided to keep it. Ofcourse no one knows about it, but hey, oh well.

Capitalism and Socialism, as well as any form of government, all has it pros and cons. America has lived with Capitalism for over 200 years, so I doubt we're going to change now. So I really don't see any use arguing over it. Think what you think.

And George Bush is in office because American morons voted him in there. He's no tin there because he has money, although I'm sure that got him some votes, but if Americans weren't as dumb as Bush, he wouldn't be in office. He simply relates very well with most Americans. lol.

[Chaos]

I'm going to say this with all respect intended; "**** you all who think Bush isn't doing his job correctly."

If you're offended by that, then you need to get more time outside.

Anyway, capitalism is rather stupid in some cases. We believe in free enterprise, yet we look down on the "big corporations" when they take over the underdog. Socialism was a very good idea, though, in my opinion. Communism was all right, but it put too much pressure on the people. Facism was ideal for a certain population, but radical ideas from the outside that clash with the country's feelings.

K4rl M4rx 0wnz j00.

[wrist cutter]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]And George Bush is in office because American morons voted him in there. [/B][/QUOTE]

And uh, which state was that again? :P

[Genkai]

Hail Mao.


Okay, face it, socialism has never worked. It's a good idea--give me one example of it being acceptable.


Sounds like you heard of capitalism yesterday anddecided to start a thread on it. Yay for you.

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i]
[B]And uh, which state was that again? :P [/B][/QUOTE]

Hey! I wasn't old enough to vote then, and even if that was the case, I can tell where arrows point, unlike the 30 million old people who live here.

[klinanime1]

quote Transtic Nerve-
"And George Bush is in office because American morons voted him in there. He's no tin there because he has money, although I'm sure that got him some votes, but if Americans weren't as dumb as Bush, he wouldn't be in office. He simply relates very well with most Americans. lol."
Oh, thanks. My 4.5 GPA just took a crushing blow on that. What? Someone's considering Anarchy? In the words of philosopher Locke, "Life without government would be brutish, hard, and short." Sheesh.
Still, I wouldn't have Gore or Nader in the position, as much as I dislike Bush. Hey, the election, to me, was a no win situation. Then and again, I'm a high school freshman without much hope for the sanity of our (US) country. You should see the senior in my government class. *sigh*
By the way, capitalism is the belief in free market, or an economic standard. I don't think it's supposed to be a governmental type, so basically the whole conversation is off topic with word misusage. (Capitalism as a substitute for democracy). Frankly, I'd prefer calling the US a Democratic Federal Republic, but that's just me.^-^
Klin

[James]

[color=#808080]You're right, klinanime. Capitalism isn't a form of Government; it's a form of economy.

Communism and socialism are essentially one in the same - I would only say that the major distinction between the two is that one is a more harsh version of the other.

I think someone actually mentioned why Communism doesn't work. And actually, there's a really good quote from a book called "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich", a man who lived in a re-education camp in Soviet Russia.

He coined the term "From a distance, communism is like a diamond. But up close, it is a teardrop".

I may not have gotten that exactly right, but that's basically what he said. And it's [i]very[/i] true. Communism simply can't work, because it's incredibly impractical. The fact is, you [i]need[/i] large companies and entrepreneurial spirit to maintain a standard of living for all citizens. If you take away the free right to private ownership and personal wealth, you are [i]also[/i] hurting your own Government's ability to provide welfare services to those who are less fortunate in society.[/color]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Chaos:[/i][b]
We believe in free enterprise, yet we look down on the "big corporations" when they take over the underdog. Socialism was a very good idea, though, in my opinion. Communism was all right, but it put too much pressure on the people. Facism was ideal for a certain population, but radical ideas from the outside that clash with the country's feelings.

K4rl M4rx 0wnz j00.
[/b][/quote]

[color=#808080]Well, people who look down on corporations in general are, in my opinion, people who generally don't believe in free enterprise. You can't believe in free enterprise and personal ownership if you also disapprove of large business. It's too contradictory to work, I think.

Communism was really never all right, I'd say. If you look back at Communist nations, you'll find that most of them either imploded or remain countries with massive social welfare problems and huge economic and civil rights issues (take China as an example of that). As standards improve, it is only natural for Communist nations to become Capitalist democracies. One day, China will be a Capitalist society. And it will also be a democracy. Why? Because that combination of national management [i]works[/i]. Countries that employed such philosophies successfully are now among the world's richest, with higher living standards than their Communist counterparts. So it's a natural evolution from worse to better, in a sense.

As far as Facism goes...no, I wouldn't say that it was ideal for any population. Look at Facism in Germany pre and during WWII. It was never ideal - it was crushing. It was painful. And it was suppressive. The "Marx" brand of facism was something that several world leaders tried to employ, including Stalin. But did it ever work? No.

You could argue that these leaders were all unstable men and that no system would have worked under their leadership anyway. But I think that would be a pretty ridiculous argument, because facism by its very nature is something that is not adopted by completely free nations. It's mostly a case of one person dictating policy to many others (which, of course, is also the complete opposite to the anarchy scenario that you might endorse). So yeah, you can't be for both, because they're polar opposites, if that makes sense.

I think basically, as I said earlier...it's really easy to endorse facism, communism and the like. It's easy when you're in a free nation. But I feel that such opinions would change dramatically if you were placed in a nation that surpresses the free speech and civil rights that you currently enjoy.

Maybe it's a geener pastures thing though; maybe we are never really happy or appreciative of what we have until we lose it. I think there's an element of truth in that.[/color]

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathKnight [/i]
[B][color=crimson]I think honestly Anarchy has to be instated without alot of violence, or 'troublemakeing'- It is, technically, supposed to be the ultimate form of human cooperation without any sort of upper authority, right? So how would violence be cooperation? Anarchists originally werent troublemakers at all, I believe that it was supposed to be extremely peaceful at first..

At least, if I remember that book right.

But people take that out of context and focus on 'no authority' and instantly think "Hey, I dont like Authority. I'm an anarchist."

And thusly more idiots are born.

Feel free to correct me on the first paragraph, my memory is sort of sketchy.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Pretty much exactly what I mewant when I said it was misused and misunderstood. I didn't mean anarchy in it's true form is a form of causing trouble, but rather that's what the general opinion tends to be. Hence you get the "Hey, I dont like Authority. I'm an anarchist." viewpoint that you pointed out. But yeah, I agree with you there too.

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]I dont know, James. Democracy is not going to work in the long run either, not the form that the United States says it employs anyway. 'Majority Rule' doesnt really apply anymore, so its not 'democracy', or the dictionary defination of it.[/color]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathKnight [/i]
[B][color=crimson]I dont know, James. Democracy is not going to work in the long run either, not the form that the United States says it employs anyway. 'Majority Rule' doesnt really apply anymore, so its not 'democracy', or the dictionary defination of it.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#808080]Why doesn't "majority rule" apply anymore?

And ultimately, how else are you going to operate a country? I don't see any realistic alternative to democracy.

You really can't run a nation with a system of anarchy or something like that. A country needs at least somewhat centralized leadership in order to operate. You need institutions and organizations to operate public services. And in a democracy, the entire public has the ability to choose which leaders they want to represent them in those areas.

Are you going to push for a system that gives the minority of voters control over the nation? I mean, really, you're not going to find a way of pleasing everyone. You simply can't. Everybody disagrees on how to run things - everybody has a different view. So, you either allow people to choose via a democratic process or you dictate your policy to everybody, regardless of how they feel (ie: a dictatorship).

So, if you are an advocate for allowing people to express themselves (their political views and their solutions to problems), surely you have to support democracy.

Of course, you might be jaded about the way democracy is handled in the United States or any other country. But once again, if you were on the other side of the fence (ie: Iran, where the "democracy" is nothing but thinly veiled dictatorship), you might think differently about the way the United States handles democracy.

At least in your country, if you dislike the public representatives, you can pursue your own career in public life. I mean, democracy isn't perfect (as I said, not everyone always gets heard), but I can't think of a better way of operating a country and being as fair as possible.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

Quoting my father, who could have been quoting someone else?
Quote -
"America has a popularity contest every four years where the man with the most money wins, the rest of the time its run by lobby groups in Washington."
-

This, as [b]I've[/b] seen is a [i]fair[/i] analysis of the American political system. It's an alternative to democracy and it's also most likely the reason that is coursing America to slowly fall apart.

Now even if you don't agree with the above, which I can almost guaranty James won?t, you still have to admit that America isn't really a democracy in the sense of the word anymore. One of the most clear cut examples is how the persent president got into power. Both sides played so dirty that in the end it was basically a toss of a coin that decided the winner. (Anyone could have won.)

But as I stated before, Capitalism has its place in the world. Personally I believe that place is America, it?s what made the country so great and it?s what?s most likly going to kill it in the future, economically.

I?m aware that I skipped over a lot which will most likely make my post non-understandable but my IPT and English assignments are more important and I just wanted to get that quote in while clarifying my earlier post and also to tell James that that thing about the University was a one of rant. Which no longer applies because the uni I want to go to has said that they don?t intend to increase their prices if the changes come in. :P

Eps ? Heh!