Yes.
See? This is what I was talking about. It may be fascism, but it is the inevitable result of capitalism.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes.
See? This is what I was talking about. It may be fascism, but it is the inevitable result of capitalism.[/quote]
No. It was a result of government intervening in capitalism on behalf of big business.
By definition as soon as government intervenes it can no longer be capitalism. These businesses are no more capitalistic than the mafia. Quit trying to change the definition of capitalism to fit your flawed dogma.
well lets call it “the current global system” to end this stupid semantic debate.
the current system have big government, market-economy and its a class society. it sucks and should be replaced by a differnet system. Socialists think that socialisme would be better than “the current global system”.
you libertarians think capitalisme/libertarianisme would be better than “the current global system”.
now can we agree on this definition of the system of today? so the discussion can progress.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
See? This is what I was talking about. It may be fascism, but it is the inevitable result of capitalism.[/quote]
Incorrect. Fascism is the offspring of socialism. Fascism requires that business act in service to the state to preserve a particular goal of wealth redistribution and class harmony.
Capitalism has a bunch of flaws - begetting fascism ain’t one of them.
[quote]florelius wrote:
well lets call it “the current global system” to end this stupid semantic debate.
the current system have big government, market-economy and its a class society. it sucks and should be replaced by a differnet system. Socialists think that socialisme would be better than “the current global system”.
you libertarians think capitalisme/libertarianisme would be better than “the current global system”.
now can we agree on this definition of the system of today? so the discussion can progress.
[/quote]
Well the thing is the current global system has been pulled to the socialist side, they are just wanting it to go more there way.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Dustin wrote:Mass murder for capitalism? Governments carry out wars. I fail to see what their particular economic system has to do with it.[/quote]
No, I’m telling you that wars are an action of the state, no matter what its economic system might be. Mass murder is mass murder.
Whatever the aforementioned failed states did to their own citizenry is a different topic. I was focusing more on your comment of “mass murder for capitalism.”
“Socialism” ala the Soviet Union can be blamed for gulags, forced collectivization, and any of the other cool stuff that goes along with a police state. I’m pretty sure that is Orion was referring to as well.[/quote]
I see, so in your latest attempt to split hairs in order to protect your ideology, you have removed war and mass murder as offenses for which an economic system can be blamed, on the grounds that they are “actions of the state.” This is doubtless because the vast majority of the capitalist body count was piled up through wars, however, it conveniently leaves the Soviet Union susceptible to rebuke for its gulags, purges, etc. A conscious person might ask how these actions are any different than wars, since they are also actions of the state (you even used the term “police state”), but I’ll just let that contradiction go, and observe that, in this case, capitalism can also be blamed for unlawful incarcerations, “disappearances,” and torture, as in many of the United States’ favorite projects: Brazil, Chile, Korea, Iraq, and others.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes.
See? This is what I was talking about. It may be fascism, but it is the inevitable result of capitalism.[/quote]
No. It was a result of government intervening in capitalism on behalf of big business.
By definition as soon as government intervenes it can no longer be capitalism. These businesses are no more capitalistic than the mafia. Quit trying to change the definition of capitalism to fit your flawed dogma.[/quote]
Then by your definition (not the definition), capitalism is even more antiquated and useless than we find it at present under the usual definition.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
well lets call it “the current global system” to end this stupid semantic debate.
the current system have big government, market-economy and its a class society. it sucks and should be replaced by a differnet system. Socialists think that socialisme would be better than “the current global system”.
you libertarians think capitalisme/libertarianisme would be better than “the current global system”.
now can we agree on this definition of the system of today? so the discussion can progress.
[/quote]
Well the thing is the current global system has been pulled to the socialist side, they are just wanting it to go more there way.[/quote]
so that a world wide system where most property are owned by the few is socialisme 
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Recessions used to drag on for years. I’m not sure what you’re talking about. There’s a reason no mainstream economist agrees with you.
[/quote]
Yeah, because you just made that up.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I see. If a “socialist” government does it, it’s mass murder, but if a capitalist government does it, you get to call it “war,” and it’s OK.
By the way, if you don’t see that the economic system has anything to do with it, then what are you blaming socialism for? It is an economic system.
[/quote]
Yeah well, leaving wars aside for a moment, the last mass starvations in a capitalist country was the Irish Famine, whereas it happened regularily in China, Russia, Cambodia, because of failed policies and sometimes because it was used as a weapon.
Greedy capitalist pigs tend not to let their customers starve, really bad for business.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
well lets call it “the current global system” to end this stupid semantic debate.
the current system have big government, market-economy and its a class society. it sucks and should be replaced by a differnet system. Socialists think that socialisme would be better than “the current global system”.
you libertarians think capitalisme/libertarianisme would be better than “the current global system”.
now can we agree on this definition of the system of today? so the discussion can progress.
[/quote]
Well the thing is the current global system has been pulled to the socialist side, they are just wanting it to go more there way.[/quote]
Well no. Since the 1940’s with the deregulation of the financial markets, the scrapping of the Bretton Woods system, the weakening of the welfare state, the introduction of multinational companies, and the growth of global financial trade, the system is definitively pulled to the capitalist side.
Sure it’s not pure capitalism, but it’s a lot farther from pure socialism.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I see. If a “socialist” government does it, it’s mass murder, but if a capitalist government does it, you get to call it “war,” and it’s OK.
By the way, if you don’t see that the economic system has anything to do with it, then what are you blaming socialism for? It is an economic system.
[/quote]
Yeah well, leaving wars aside for a moment, the last mass starvations in a capitalist country was the Irish Famine, whereas it happened regularily in China, Russia, Cambodia, because of failed policies and sometimes because it was used as a weapon.
Greedy capitalist pigs tend not to let their customers starve, really bad for business.
[/quote]
Lots of people starve in capitalist countries. Ever heard of Africa? Lots of starving people in capitalist countries there.
[quote]molnes wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I see. If a “socialist” government does it, it’s mass murder, but if a capitalist government does it, you get to call it “war,” and it’s OK.
By the way, if you don’t see that the economic system has anything to do with it, then what are you blaming socialism for? It is an economic system.
[/quote]
Yeah well, leaving wars aside for a moment, the last mass starvations in a capitalist country was the Irish Famine, whereas it happened regularily in China, Russia, Cambodia, because of failed policies and sometimes because it was used as a weapon.
Greedy capitalist pigs tend not to let their customers starve, really bad for business.
[/quote]
Lots of people starve in capitalist countries. Ever heard of Africa? Lots of starving people in capitalist countries there. [/quote]
ah du ga dem ett ballespark der min landsmann haha.
[quote]molnes wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I see. If a “socialist” government does it, it’s mass murder, but if a capitalist government does it, you get to call it “war,” and it’s OK.
By the way, if you don’t see that the economic system has anything to do with it, then what are you blaming socialism for? It is an economic system.
[/quote]
Yeah well, leaving wars aside for a moment, the last mass starvations in a capitalist country was the Irish Famine, whereas it happened regularily in China, Russia, Cambodia, because of failed policies and sometimes because it was used as a weapon.
Greedy capitalist pigs tend not to let their customers starve, really bad for business.
[/quote]
Lots of people starve in capitalist countries. Ever heard of Africa? Lots of starving people in capitalist countries there. [/quote]
Really?
Where, Zimbawbe?
Because they exported food like cracy before Mugabe decided to redistribute land to farmers that did not have the CAPITAL to realize solid yields.
The fact that they also believed that being a capitalist is so easy that everyone can do it by comitee did not helo either.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I see, so in your latest attempt to split hairs in order to protect your ideology, you have removed war and mass murder as offenses for which an economic system can be blamed, on the grounds that they are “actions of the state.” [/quote]
No, I’m telling you that wars are an action of the state, no matter what its economic system might be. Mass murder is mass murder.
Western states kill people in wars and so did the Soviet Union. Their economic system is irrelevant.
You claim that I argue semantics to protect my ideology, yet you are doing just that right here.
[quote]
A conscious person might ask how these actions are any different than wars, since they are also actions of the state (you even used the term “police state”), but I’ll just let that contradiction go, and observe that, in this case, capitalism can also be blamed for unlawful incarcerations, “disappearances,” and torture, as in many of the United States’ favorite projects: Brazil, Chile, Korea, Iraq, and others. [/quote]
The conscious person would say that in Western states, one has considerable amounts of freedom and doesn’t have to worry about being sent to a gulag for saying the wrong thing. It’s a pretty obvious difference in the states who claim to be capitalist and those that claim socialism/communism.
And since you are splitting hairs, I’ll point out that I’m certainly not giving the U.S government a pass either.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I see, so in your latest attempt to split hairs in order to protect your ideology, you have removed war and mass murder as offenses for which an economic system can be blamed, on the grounds that they are “actions of the state.” [/quote]
No, I’m telling you that wars are an action of the state, no matter what its economic system might be. Mass murder is mass murder.
Western states kill people in wars and so did the Soviet Union. Their economic system is irrelevant.
You claim that I argue semantics to protect my ideology, yet you are doing just that right here.
[quote]
A conscious person might ask how these actions are any different than wars, since they are also actions of the state (you even used the term “police state”), but I’ll just let that contradiction go, and observe that, in this case, capitalism can also be blamed for unlawful incarcerations, “disappearances,” and torture, as in many of the United States’ favorite projects: Brazil, Chile, Korea, Iraq, and others. [/quote]
The conscious person would say that in Western states, one has considerable amounts of freedom and doesn’t have to worry about being sent to a gulag for saying the wrong thing. It’s a pretty obvious difference in the states who claim to be capitalist and those that claim socialism/communism.
And since you are splitting hairs, I’ll point out that I’m certainly not giving the U.S government a pass. [/quote]
I think the bottom line is that capitalist nations can be dictatorships, but socialist nations must be dictatorships.
The socialisation of the means of production hardly leaves room for anything else.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I see, so in your latest attempt to split hairs in order to protect your ideology, you have removed war and mass murder as offenses for which an economic system can be blamed, on the grounds that they are “actions of the state.” [/quote]
No, I’m telling you that wars are an action of the state, no matter what its economic system might be. Mass murder is mass murder.
Western states kill people in wars and so did the Soviet Union. Their economic system is irrelevant.
You claim that I argue semantics to protect my ideology, yet you are doing just that right here.
Good point.
Glad you made this clarification as we wouldn’t want to be accused of splitting hairs to defend ideology.
[quote]orion wrote:
I think the bottom line is that capitalist nations can be dictatorships, but socialist nations must be dictatorships.
The socialisation of the means of production hardly leaves room for anything else.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Bolivia is both a democracy and a socialist state. The Socialist party that’s currently in power (Movement for Socialism), was voted in with 64 percent of the votes in 2009. The party has been in power since 2005, and winning another election with such solid numbers is very rare for any country, especially Bolivia which historically has been ruled by a lot of coalition governments. Which Means they probably are doing something right…
[quote]
Really?
Where, Zimbawbe?
Because they exported food like cracy before Mugabe decided to redistribute land to farmers that did not have the CAPITAL to realize solid yields.
The fact that they also believed that being a capitalist is so easy that everyone can do it by comitee did not helo either. [/quote]
In Niger, for instance (no I did not drop the N-bomb, the country of Niger). Where capitalism directly contributed to making things a lot worse than it had to be. The poor could not afford the food that was being produced so a lot was exported to neighbouring countries. The market is random. It’s such a naive notion to believe that the market always magically sorts things out. It doesn’t work like that in the real world.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Recessions used to drag on for years. I’m not sure what you’re talking about. There’s a reason no mainstream economist agrees with you.
[/quote]
Yeah, because you just made that up.
[/quote]
It’s true that recessions (“panics”) were somewhat more frequent but they definitely had a shorter duration. I don’t know where-da-fuk McFarter digs this “the sky is green” stuff up from.[/quote]
What pushitdeeperintomyass doesn’t realize is that you learn a lot when you read history without skipping the parts you don’t like.
There are several 5 and 6 year depressions there. Even when they were short, the average length of time between downturns is brief. Things would be even worse today, with the increasing interconnectedness of the global economy and greater mobility of capital.