The success of capitalism

[Scott Tree]

You were so erratic and vague (and still are) that I couldn't isolate a specific question to answer.

On the first three questions, yes. Private property of any type (corporate, intellectual) is objectively just as much of a weapon as a gun or knife, and should be vigorously controlled. The basic principle there is protecting people from other people, no different than a law against homocide.

On the last question and the confused and possibly identical examples that follow it, wealth should be redistributed. In the context given in the previous paragraph, it is simply disarming an opponent. Regarding government officials, they do not constitute a class. If you think they do, then you do not know what the definition of a class is, nor do you know what government officials are in a literal sense. This all leads back to the same thing, and it is that you don't have a basic grasp of what socialism is. This is evidenced by the fact that you put the 'President of the EU' next to Chavez and Stalin (who you probably possess only anecdotal knowledge of anyway).

The EU and some of its other counterparts are so nakedly free-trade capitalist that it would take a complete and absolute moron to mix it up with socialism. Do you honestly have any idea what the process of joining the EU involves? The existing members of the EU go to such extreme lengths to make sure that any country considering joining doesn't put a drag on their capitalist economies even slightly that it is a bit revolting. They don't want their economies linked to any 'deadweights' in capitalist economic terms and they have a plethora of regional and international standards tied to their requirements to ensure that any admitted country is as capitalist as Wall Street, Damrak, La Défense, Bankenviertel, Levent, or any other place they will be economically linked to. Needless to say, it is the opposite of wealth redistribution.

Now we are getting somewhere here and yes I do know the difference between them. Everyone here WAS saying Europe was socialist I linked them in under socialism not dictator. Would it help if I said Brazil, the E.U., and Cuba instead? Just like how you would link America, E.U., and Canada under Democracy. Why do you hate property so much?

[Zutroy]

You were so erratic and vague (and still are) that I couldn't isolate a specific question to answer.

On the first three questions, yes. Private property of any type (corporate, intellectual) is objectively just as much of a weapon as a gun or knife, and should be vigorously controlled. The basic principle there is protecting people from other people, no different than a law against homocide.

On the last question and the confused and possibly identical examples that follow it, wealth should be redistributed. In the context given in the previous paragraph, it is simply disarming an opponent. Regarding government officials, they do not constitute a class. If you think they do, then you do not know what the definition of a class is, nor do you know what government officials are in a literal sense. This all leads back to the same thing, and it is that you don't have a basic grasp of what socialism is. This is evidenced by the fact that you put the 'President of the EU' next to Chavez and Stalin (who you probably possess only anecdotal knowledge of anyway).

The EU and some of its other counterparts are so nakedly free-trade capitalist that it would take a complete and absolute moron to mix it up with socialism. Do you honestly have any idea what the process of joining the EU involves? The existing members of the EU go to such extreme lengths to make sure that any country considering joining doesn't put a drag on their capitalist economies even slightly that it is a bit revolting. They don't want their economies linked to any 'deadweights' in capitalist economic terms and they have a plethora of regional and international standards tied to their requirements to ensure that any admitted country is as capitalist as Wall Street, Damrak, La Défense, Bankenviertel, Levent, or any other place they will be economically linked to. Needless to say, it is the opposite of wealth redistribution.

Now we are getting somewhere here and yes I do know the difference between them. Everyone here WAS saying Europe was socialist I linked them in under socialism not dictator. Would it help if I said Brazil, the E.U., and Cuba instead? Just like how you would link America, E.U., and Canada under Democracy. Why do you hate property so much?

I was saying that you linked them together under socialism. It just proves that you cannot clearly define socialism or capitalism if the EU and Stalin blur together from your point of view.

I don't know who is saying Europe is socialist or why the hell they think so, but they are flat wrong for reasons I already labored through. Grafting a safety net onto capitalism is not socialism. If that were the case, Otto Von Bismarck would be the world's first socialist.

If you think Brazil is a socialist state, it is yet more evidence that you do not know what you are talking about. Brazil is linked to the major capitalist economies almost as thoroughly as the EU. Again, here is another instance where a few social packages and a trade-unionist turned president don't suddenly turn a country into a giant kibbutz.

The answer to the property question was already given, and I gave reasoning that even a small child could understand. Emphasis on private property there.

[Coffin-Breathe]

One thing´s for sure: you can´t take any simple country, call it socialistic, and wait for the outcome; socialism would be successful, if supported global-wide, as well as, in case of someone (as has been done before) quotes "the cold war", some has to think of this aera as a time of war, and the outcome (breakdown of COMECON, SSSR braking up into independent states, aso) mustn´t be seen as a failure of the system (partially though, I´ve to admit) itself, but more as the result of the Soviet block loosing an economical war. Against the "capitalistic" Western block, dominated by the US. You simply mustn´t claim a system "superior", `cause of it´s main representative´s ability to influence some (initially tought) unbiased institutions as the Worldbank to technically reduce the value of it´s opponent´s currency to nearly worthless, thus to deny your opponents the economical beneficials of the worldwide market, as has been done by the "capitalist"-reigned countries during cold war. On the other side, you mustn´t declare the economical defeat of a system when forcing it to spend the main part of it´s economical budget in armament (in fact, the main reason, why cold war ended, as neither the US nor the SSSR had been able to afford the competition of armament any longer). A whole lot of these countries´ economical problems are resulting from unaffordable military expenses, and, in case of the US, have a short look at the cost of the ongoing war in Afghanistan or Iraq - just to prove...

As well as capitalism is spread global-wide and it´s not possible to simply select a sole country for judgement, as well must socialism be seen on a global scale, and, as there´s no current practical example for the latter, can´t be done in prctice. As for the former, I declare, that capitalism will fail in a short time, and the beginning of it´s failure has reared it´s ugly head just now, given the worldwide economical crisis happening (and nearly everyone would agree, primarily on the fault of an overboarding global capitalism, with stock-exchangings creating money out of nowhere, and handling hypothethical money with no counterpart in real production and all; I just don´t want to go into detail...) nowadays.
My view of the future is, that changes have to, and will come, but most of us (more or less wealthy and protected people) won´t like them...

[Coffin-Breathe]

I don't know who is saying Europe is socialist or why the hell they think so, but they are flat wrong for reasons I already labored through. Grafting a safety net onto capitalism is not socialism. If that were the case, Otto Von Bismarck would be the world's first socialist.

Seems to me, that many "American" people see the existence of a government-provided health-care system, free (or nearly cost-free) higher education and the existence of free unions as a mark of socialsm (which, in fact, is), and so call the European Community as "kind of socialistic", despite, given it´s momentary standards, it couldn´t be more far away from this ever, in fact.

[Tergnitz]

The success of capitalism is called the modern era, look at all of the technology around you, all driven by consumer demand and provided by the free-market.

[Lelouche]

The success of capitalism is called the modern era, look at all of the technology around you, all driven by consumer demand and provided by the free-market.

Partially true, I can't think of any heavily socialist/communist nations developing any breakthrough consumer level advances, save for Military or Space Technology (the Arms race, and the space race, respectively) aspects of competition not fostered in egalitarian societies.

However, much of our "Modern Era" is fueled by the "Military Industrial Complex", IE "Government Demand" the dividends and advancements of which later fueled "Consumer Demand" as supplied by the free market

Your point is still entirely valid

[Tergnitz]

The success of capitalism is called the modern era, look at all of the technology around you, all driven by consumer demand and provided by the free-market.

Partially true, I can't think of any heavily socialist/communist nations developing any breakthrough consumer level advances, save for Military or Space Technology (the Arms race, and the space race, respectively) aspects of competition not fostered in egalitarian societies.

However, much of our "Modern Era" is fueled by the "Military Industrial Complex", IE "Government Demand" the dividends and advancements of which later fueled "Consumer Demand" as supplied by the free market

Your point is still entirely valid

Why thank you for validating and elaborating on my point

Saying that, you are totally correct. A vast majority of our modern day technology does stem from government demand for products for the military. Not so much since the end of the Cold War, but during that period, your 100% right. The true success story of capitalism is not really technological development, thats part of it, but not the main part. It's major accomplisment has been the raising of living standrads of society in general thanks to the ability to take these 'military' technology advancements and translate them into a commercial context, making them avalibale for purchase by the vast majority of society thanks to mass production techniques. Such as microwave ovens being developed from the original microwave technology used by the US military.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

5. Government makes more money (sound familiar? Obama double the deficit in 6 months long term it will hurt the Dollar. Do you know what a country looks like with a worthless currency Africa) government collapses from over spending so it takes more money from the people

Welcome to a decade ago?

[Rolamec]

Once again, pure capitalism is just as much a failure as pure socialism.

Agreed. We had a nearly pure capitalist society during the Industrial Age, it made Gates and Buffet look insignificant too Carnegie and Rockefeller (adjusted to inflation- there wealth was in the hundreds of billions compared to Gates 60 or so). But the problem was corporations were beneficial towards the few, for the rest it was hell. Work hours were official, conditions were horrific. Peanut butter was mixed with saw dust, and there was no regulation prohibiting that.

Frankly, I don't want to see a society that is absolute capitalists or absolute socialists. Both are failures, and only in the middle, can there be success.

(Sorry if my grammar is poor, I'm tired, and I don't care)

[The Sapian Empire]

Once again, pure capitalism is just as much a failure as pure socialism.

How do you know if it's never been tried.

Which one? Pure capitalism or Pure socialism? THe argument can be applied to both sides equally after all.

Well, pure socialism will never be successful in the hands of humanity, so scrap that one. But pure capitalism has truly never been tried in a modern world... Absolutely no government interference, and absolutely no restrictions. I can estimate that pure capitalism would have a good and bad side; the tree huggers will be pissed at the constant pollution, and people will die of disease and sickness with no food and meat regulations. I do agree that both pure capitalism and pure socialism fail... But considering socialism is impossible for humans to correct, the perfect spot would be more toward capitalism than socialism.

[Call to power]

I like how I already posted in this thread so I can just sorta be jack and tear into other peoples opinions with no chance of getting the dirty on...why was I bigging up the India companies in 2009

anyway this is gravedigging which you should not do instead you could make a new thread and even quote the OP in it

Well, pure socialism will never be successful in the hands of humanity, so scrap that one.

debatable considering we have (arguably) only seen perversions of the ideology spring up and the experiments provided in western economies have given us some dandy results like Co-operative economics

But pure capitalism has truly never been tried in a modern world... Absolutely no government interference, and absolutely no restrictions.

I don't know for example would Somalia circa 2003 be an example of anarcho-capitalism?

I can estimate that pure capitalism would have a good and bad side; the tree huggers will be pissed at the constant pollution, and people will die of disease and sickness with no food and meat regulations. I do agree that both pure capitalism and pure socialism fail... But considering socialism is impossible for humans to correct, the perfect spot would be more toward capitalism than socialism.

only the right-swing we are seeing from Western political parties atm has seen the systematic selling off of national industries carried on from the 80's which has been a mixed bag of results with things like British rail being an utter farce

I suppose what I'm asking for from your post is a little context do you for example approve of the more modern Social democracy or one from the 70's?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

The only thing capitalism has been successful in is taking from the poor and giving it to the rich.
I'm being sarcastic by the way.

[Bafuria]

Hong Kong

/thread.