Wage Slavery? The poor are poor because....

[Sanguinea]

This thread is utterly hilarious. At least a few years back the an-cap horde would attempt to argue against anyone who wasn't a far-right capitalist, but now it's just "you are jealous!" or "your ideology is stupid, lol". Just further proof the average age of posters has been degrading.

They don't have an actual argument because you can't defend Liberal-Capitalism, it is evil, degenerate, and has no benefits.

[Divair2]

This thread is utterly hilarious. At least a few years back the an-cap horde would attempt to argue against anyone who wasn't a far-right capitalist, but now it's just "you are jealous!" or "your ideology is stupid, lol". Just further proof the average age of posters has been degrading.

They don't have an actual argument because you can't defend Liberal-Capitalism, it is evil, degenerate, and has no benefits.

Unregulated capitalism, yes.

[Romano-Germanic Empire]

They're poor because they're moochers who're living on the government teat! They should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

You say they should "pull themselves up by their bootstraps," when you forget that there are people in this world who don't even have shoes.....

[Occupied Deutschland]

This thread is utterly hilarious. At least a few years back the an-cap horde would attempt to argue against anyone who wasn't a far-right capitalist, but now it's just "you are jealous!" or "your ideology is stupid, lol". Just further proof the average age of posters has been degrading.

They don't have an actual argument because you can't defend Liberal-Capitalism (1), it is evil(2), degenerate(3), and has no benefits(4).

1) Yes, you can.
2) No more so than any economic system can be named as 'evil'.
3)
4) You don't get out much do you?

[Arkinesia]

All of the options in the poll are wrong because of two things.

1. It doesn't include the option that describes me (thus, the options are incomplete).
2. Being poor doesn't happen for a single reason in any case.

[Ostroeuropa]

They don't have an actual argument because you can't defend Liberal-Capitalism, it is evil, degenerate, and has no benefits.

Unregulated capitalism, yes.

"Burning oil is good for locomotion." -Undisputed

"This notion that we should only burn oil in engines is SOCIALIST REGULATION. ITS HURTING MUH CAPITALISM." - Neoliberal

(One burned oil field later.)

"Clearly, this lack of locomotion from burning oil is a result of residual regulation and socialism. We need to destroy the oil wells and just set the pools on fire." - Neoliberals


It's insanity. Pure and simple. Fantasy land farmville economics.

[Sanguinea]

They don't have an actual argument because you can't defend Liberal-Capitalism, it is evil, degenerate, and has no benefits.

Unregulated capitalism, yes.

Capitalism, period. It's the most utterly insidious and vile creed man has birthed, it should be completely eradicated.

[Divair2]

Unregulated capitalism, yes.

Capitalism, period. It's the most utterly insidious and vile creed man has birthed, it should be completely eradicated.

Nah.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'll start taking the social darwinists seriously when they advocate 100% inheritance tax to fund public schools only, and advocate for community raising of children.
That way, everyone fails or succeeds on their own merits.

[Vissegaard]

I'll start taking the social darwinists seriously when they advocate 100% inheritance tax to fund public schools only, and advocate for community raising of children.
That way, everyone fails or succeeds on their own merits.

Inheritance tax is bullshit, sorry. Darwinism is not about the individual, it´s about the genes. One has to support his children and they must support him. If the said ancestor is satisfied with their service, he pays them after his death with the inheritance.

[Bezombia]

I think it depends on how they become rich. Many rich-people use cheap dirty tricks to get so high-up in the market (such as storing their money in off-shore bank accounts to avoid paying taxes, and hiring cheap foreign labor that they can under-pay).

These are problems that can be fixed or mitigated. If the rich are committing tax evasion, you can pass laws to more aggressively pursue them. If they are outsourcing, you can pass tariffs to reduce that. That doesn't mean that the entire system should be scrapped.

But how do you fix this? Or this?

[Universal Socialism]

Unregulated capitalism, yes.

Capitalism, period. It's the most utterly insidious and vile creed man has birthed, it should be completely eradicated.

At that point even I think your going a bit far. I will admit capitalism isn't without it's merits.

[Greater-London]

That isn't always the case. Look at roads and bridges private companies don't own those because they can't directly profit from those, but they were made by the government for the sake of public good.

True. however they were built by private companies, shareholders and owners get richer. Employees benefit from the work and are paid in capital which they go to spend in the economy on products that keeps the whole thing moving. Also things are rarely done for the sake of public good, the construction of new roads increases production by giving more room for freight and freeing up roadways.

Also the higher living standards we enjoy now aren't really based on those things done by the government for public good. Its mainly due to the fact that most of us have more capital than we used too, we are free to do more things we enjoy such as doing leisure activities with friends and family. We also have nicer houses, comfier sofas, bigger TV's. Aside from the material gains we also have better communication technologies, we can talk to our relatives across the world on laptops or use them to look at the worlds best art galleries or read classic literature.

[Divair2]

I'll start taking the social darwinists seriously when they advocate 100% inheritance tax to fund public schools only, and advocate for community raising of children.
That way, everyone fails or succeeds on their own merits.

Inheritance tax is bullshit, sorry. Darwinism is not about the individual, it´s about the genes. One has to support his children and they must support him. If the said ancestor is satisfied with their service, he pays them after his death with the inheritance.

So what you're saying is you don't understand social Darwinism.

[Romano-Germanic Empire]

Unregulated capitalism, yes.

Capitalism, period. It's the most utterly insidious and vile creed man has birthed, it should be completely eradicated.

Capitalism is the only economic system to have lasted throughout te ages. Communism (while the ideal system) has failed in all real-world applications. Facism is almost universally recognized as a horrible system and anarchy is just a disaster waiting to happen.

I personally support Market Socialism. A system where capitalism is allowed but it is limited. Large corporations struggle, but small businesses tend to flourish. Free healthcare, and edcation (execpt college, which is still heavily subsidized), and a a minimum wage that is actually livable.

[Vissegaard]

Inheritance tax is bullshit, sorry. Darwinism is not about the individual, it´s about the genes. One has to support his children and they must support him. If the said ancestor is satisfied with their service, he pays them after his death with the inheritance.

So what you're saying is you don't understand social Darwinism.

I say you don´t. Now, who is right, except I know it´s me?
Explain, or don´t try to debate.

[Divair2]

So what you're saying is you don't understand social Darwinism.

I say you don´t. Now, who is right, except I know it´s me?
Explain, or don´t try to debate.

Social Darwinism is not about genes. Social Darwinism is about applying survival of the fittest to politics. It's an extreme version of capitalists who advocate people building their own life.

[Brickistan]

Actually, true communism/socialism - i.e. workers owning the means of production - works quite well. Unlike, it must be said, the planned economy that we have seen in the so-called "communistic states". Which weren't, by the way, particularely communistic at all...

Whether or not it can work on a country-wide scale is an open question. But considering how capitalism - or rather, the crony corporatism seen in America - has failed I'm willing to give it a chance.



It's not. Indeed, you might say that a it's a good thing, in moderation, as it gives people something to aspire to and work hard to achieve.

The problems arise when the wealth gap becomes too large. Right now, America is in a situation much akin to a powder keg. The middle calls is slowly being eradicated, leaving only a tiny group of people - the (in)famous "one percent" - with money while leaving the rest of the country in an increasingly desperate situation. And once the poor get desperate enough, that's when you see revolutions happening.

The reason the middle class is shrinking is because of the rent problem. Without the working class to buy consumable goods (They can't afford it, they were busy paying their landlord) shit just goes downhill.

That we as a society made the same mistake as we did in the feudal ages is just fucking baffling to me. We should, ideally, ban housing rental. It's toxic to economic growth.

The past and current housing bubble certainly has something to do with it, yes. Treating housing as an investment, rather than a basic necessity, is just asking for trouble.

And you're not the only one who's baffled. We're just four years away from a bad crash - and far from recovered - but already housing prices here in Denmark are approaching pre-2008 levels, particularly in the big cities. It really does seem as though we stubbornly refuse to learn anything from past mistakes.

But you also need to look at the basic income. Over the last half a century or so, income has remained stagnant, even dropping a little, in America. And that's even though productivity is at an all-time high. And you need look no further than the one percent to see where all the extra money generated has gone.

Truth to be told, I'm utterly baffled at how Americans have simply accepted working 50, 60 or even 80 hours per week, just to make ends meet, and not complain. But corporate propaganda has been very effective to the point where unemployed are all stigmatized as "lazy bums" and the idea of working two jobs is seen as normal.

Try that in Europe and you'd be in serious trouble. But then again, European unions, though somewhat weakened, are still strong enough to prevent such exploitation.

Actually, true communism/socialism - i.e. workers owning the means of production - works quite well. Unlike, it must be said, the planned economy that we have seen in the so-called "communistic states". Which weren't, by the way, particularely communistic at all...

Whether or not it can work on a country-wide scale is an open question. But considering how capitalism - or rather, the crony corporatism seen in America - has failed I'm willing to give it a chance.



It's not. Indeed, you might say that a it's a good thing, in moderation, as it gives people something to aspire to and work hard to achieve.

The problems arise when the wealth gap becomes too large. Right now, America is in a situation much akin to a powder keg. The middle calls is slowly being eradicated, leaving only a tiny group of people - the (in)famous "one percent" - with money while leaving the rest of the country in an increasingly desperate situation. And once the poor get desperate enough, that's when you see revolutions happening.

Which is why you ground Riot Police to smash the cute little "revolution". It takes patience, you know ? Things aren't going to get better with violence.

Even so, such revolutions have happened before. Just look at Eastern Europe and Southern America and you will see plenty of successful - some peaceful, some not so much - revolutions. What it comes down to is how much support the revolution will have among the armed forces and police units. How many soldiers will be willing to shot at their own countrymen?

Truth be told, considering the increased militarization - not to mention, brutalization - of the American police, I'm actually getting a bit worried here. There seems to be an increasing callousness among not just the police, but the whole population. The American news-channels - aka. propaganda machines - have been very effective at splitting the population, focusing it's anger on nonsensical issues rather than dealing with the real problems.

In a way, it reminds me of of pre-WW2 Germany. A population that's being radicalized. Given an external enemy. Told that they're under threat and that they have to strike back. Increasingly demonizing particular groups... It's all there. Indeed, had Goebbels seen the state of American television and politics now, he would be weeping with joy.

And I'm doubly worried because I'm also seeing this happening here in Europe. It's not as bad yet (we still have some good state-owned, somewhat independent, news-channels), but we're getting there. The tone in European politics, and the population at large, is growing increasingly angry. People are looking for scapegoats, and where it was once Jews, now it's Muslims. And by all that's holy, we ought to know better than go down the route again!

[Greater-London]

They don't have an actual argument because you can't defend Liberal-Capitalism, it is evil, degenerate, and has no benefits.

Of course you can.

You can't say it has no benefits, a few pages ago you were arguing it benefited "only the rich" so that's some benefits. Besides its not only the rich anyway living standards and wealth has gone up for almost everyone.

To pretend that capitalism hasn't been the driving force behind our economic and scientific progress in the last century is total hokum. It has problems sure, but they are resolved within the capitalist system. Welfare to protect the people who don't win and stimulation of growth when the economy slows down, its really easy.

Please tell me how what you plan to replace it with is better and ill do my best to refute your points. Just saying its evil and degenerate makes it quite difficult to debate.

[Vissegaard]

I say you don´t. Now, who is right, except I know it´s me?
Explain, or don´t try to debate.

Social Darwinism is not about genes. Social Darwinism is about applying survival of the fittest to politics. It's an extreme version of capitalists who advocate people building their own life.

Every type of darwinism is about strenghtening one´s own kind/clan/family, by making sure it actually is the fittest. This is an extreme version of capitalism indeed - and I support it thoroughly.

[Risottia]

Unregulated capitalism, yes.

Capitalism, period. It's the most utterly insidious and vile creed man has birthed, it should be completely eradicated.

As much as I loathe it, I've seen worse.

[Divair2]

Social Darwinism is not about genes. Social Darwinism is about applying survival of the fittest to politics. It's an extreme version of capitalists who advocate people building their own life.

Every type of darwinism is about strenghtening one´s own kind/clan/family, by making sure it actually is the fittest. This is an extreme version of capitalism indeed - and I support it thoroughly.

That's not social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is not about your own "kind", your own "clan", or your own family. It's simply survival of the fittest applied to politics. Nothing more. It was popular in the 19th century among colonial empires. Nowadays? Looked down upon by almost everyone above the age of 15.

[Ostroeuropa]

Social Darwinism is not about genes. Social Darwinism is about applying survival of the fittest to politics. It's an extreme version of capitalists who advocate people building their own life.

Every type of darwinism is about strenghtening one´s own kind/clan/family, by making sure it actually is the fittest. This is an extreme version of capitalism indeed - and I support it thoroughly.

So you aren't a social darwinist, you're a nazi.
You're advocating genetic extermination through application of policy.

[Vissegaard]

Every type of darwinism is about strenghtening one´s own kind/clan/family, by making sure it actually is the fittest. This is an extreme version of capitalism indeed - and I support it thoroughly.

That's not social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is not about your own "kind", your own "clan", or your own family. It's simply survival of the fittest applied to politics. Nothing more. It was popular in the 19th century among colonial empires. Nowadays? Looked down upon by almost everyone above the age of 15.

I presume I am a one of my own kind. The thing you are speaking about is clearly asocial darwinism .
And I guess I belong to the 19th century. The good old times, when everything ran naturally...

[Ostroeuropa]

Every type of darwinism is about strenghtening one´s own kind/clan/family, by making sure it actually is the fittest. This is an extreme version of capitalism indeed - and I support it thoroughly.

That's not social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is not about your own "kind", your own "clan", or your own family. It's simply survival of the fittest applied to politics. Nothing more. It was popular in the 19th century among colonial empires. Nowadays? Looked down upon by almost everyone above the age of 15.

Except the radical ones who actually mean that shit and say that we should do 100% inheritance tax and communal raising of children.
Those people may just have the ghost of a point, albeit a cruel and callous point.
Would such a system be efficient? Probably. Ruthlessly so, is the problem.