Capitalism- Good or Bad?

[Pray4Che]

It's not going down because of the Muslims, it's going down because of multiculturalism and political correctness. When Mother's Day is banned from a school,
public facilities are hijacked for the sake of a minority, schoolgirls are arrested because they honestly can't understand the foreign language their classmates are using, we start to see the real damage that socialist culture is doing. That's not the half of it, since these issues polarize people and it gives the real racists a platform, creating further division. They of course won't win, since they are the racists. But when they lose and the rest of the culture is sufficiently weak, the Muslims will take over. They've got the numbers, they can do it.

so what if the "muslims take over"? On the one hand you say its "not because of the Muslims", and then you make out the muslims taking over would be a bad thing? What does that even mean?? The politicians that really drive us face down into the dirt are almost all white christians. The rag called "The Mail" you quoted has a reputation as being part of the racist gutter press itself and is famous for having supported the fascist blackshirts in the 30's. As for the Sun, it is part of the same corporation which stirred up a "name and shame" campaign against paedophiles which resulted in the burning of the house of a paediatrician! This press is know for its lying, and its [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]-stirring.

This press is extremely picky about what it reports. It never reports the racism of white people, but only cares to stir up hate towards immigrants and muslims. Why not find an article about where white people beat up asians, or where whites leave pigs heads outside of Mosques or BNP scum beat up socialists in yorkshire?

But none of this has anything to do with socialism. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. What has the racism of a child in Manchester and the overzealous teacher phoning the cops got to do with the ownership of the means of production? Zilch.

 

[Vylo]

Capitalism has its flaws, but in pure form works better then any system to date. I think it works even better with small amounts of regulation, that help ensure the welfare of the people. China has also shown that a more socialistic mix can work, but overall you need some capitalism in any economy to make it function well.

 

[Sketcher]

so what if the "muslims take over"? On the one hand you say its "not because of the Muslims", and then you make out the muslims taking over would be a bad thing? What does that even mean??

I'm surprised to hear a leftist say this, because Islamic law is more anti-leftist than traditional Western law. It advocates beating women, using this coercion to force them into hijab, disqualifying their voice in court, expanded use of the death penalty (including killing people for being gay and committing adultery), and persecuting non-state religions (and Islam would be the state religion). Everything you liberals have fought for in the last century will be lost in the next one.

But none of this has anything to do with socialism. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. What has the racism of a child in Manchester and the overzealous teacher phoning the cops got to do with the ownership of the means of production? Zilch.

None of this has anything to do with socialism? Both socialism and these philosophies have roots in Communism, which espouses them all. And it is the socialists who have been pushing for these cultural changes. It has quite a bit to do with socialism.

 

[Pray4Che]

I'm surprised to hear a leftist say this, because Islamic law is more anti-leftist than traditional Western law. It advocates beating women, using this coercion to force them into hijab, disqualifying their voice in court, expanded use of the death penalty (including killing people for being gay and committing adultery), and persecuting non-state religions (and Islam would be the state religion). Everything you liberals have fought for in the last century will be lost in the next one.

What you are referring to is Sharia law, and it is by no means the desire of all Muslims to impose Sharia law. My point was that you contradicted yourself, not that I support Sharia law anymore than Christians wish to return to feudal law. You said that muslims weren't the problem, and then went on to suggest that muslim take over was in fact the problem. I oppose the oppression of women whether it is by Sharia law in the Islamic world or pro-life Christians. I oppose the death penalty as much in the US as I do oppose its use in Arab countries.

The idea that muslims are going to take over this country and impose Sharia law is an absurdity. You ought to know that. Not only would you have to grossly overestimate the extent of the Muslim population, you would also have to equate Muslims with this reactionary, "anti-leftist law", which is islamophobic and shows a total ignorance of Islam. Of course, Sharia law where it has come to pass in Iran or Afghanistan was the direct result of US interference in those countries and still others are staunch allies of the great western democracy which is the US.

None of this has anything to do with socialism? Both socialism and these philosophies have roots in Communism, which espouses them all. And it is the socialists who have been pushing for these cultural changes. It has quite a bit to do with socialism.

I am a communist first of all, not a liberal. In the UK the term "liberal" has a slightly different meaning to what it has in the US I think. Liberals are the kind of people who read the Guardian

I can tell you that communism is also in favour of the abolition of private property and the capitalist state. I can tell you, communists do not specifically favour having muslim only swimming baths unless muslims choose to have baths to be used by their communities only. Personally I think religion in a communist society will become more of a personal set of beliefs and the imposition of these silly traditions will be abolished. Communists I don't think care much about the abolishing of mother's day in schools. Whether or not writing mothers day cards was something worthwhile for the kids is another matter altogether. Personally I think it is completely trivial. As a communist I can tell you I don't care about mothers day in schools; I think muslims should have the right to hire out swimming baths for their private use if they wish it. Plenty of Christian groups hire out the town halls in this country. No outcry about that. I do oppose the seperation of men and women which some Muslims favour. I also oppose the oppression of women by christian individuals. It does happen. Wife-beating, rape, lower pay than men. All these things are grand british institutions. I also think, in my professional opinion as a communist, that if the article on the girl being unable to communicate with the asian students, making a meek protest and then being arrested, was true (and these rags are terrible liars and I dont doubt the racism was more pronounced than this) then this was an over reaction by the teacher.

So there, communists dont "espouse" anything similar to this.

However, the fact is that our gutter press reports all these things and have ignored much more serious instances of racism in which muslims and political correctness have not been the villains but are quite often, even more often, the victims.

 

[Sketcher]

What you are referring to is Sharia law, and it is by no means the desire of all Muslims to impose Sharia law. My point was that you contradicted yourself, not that I support Sharia law anymore than Christians wish to return to feudal law.

You support the weakening of traditional Western culture. That's all the Islamists need, and they will move in. They have a spine. The leftist policies of political correctness et al are aimed at removing society's existing spine, making it the perfect target. With a new spineless culture in place, you guys are sitting ducks. What's ironic is you all made this.

You said that muslims weren't the problem, and then went on to suggest that muslim take over was in fact the problem.

No, that is a different problem. The problem I was referring to is leftist policy creating a spineless society.

I oppose the oppression of women whether it is by Sharia law in the Islamic world or pro-life Christians.

Except pro-life Christians don't oppress women. We just say carry your child to term and let him or her live. They say beat your wives and daughters, marry 9 year old girls, and rape non-Muslim women.

I oppose the death penalty as much in the US as I do oppose its use in Arab countries.

That's part of creating a spineless society.

The idea that muslims are going to take over this country and impose Sharia law is an absurdity. You ought to know that. Not only would you have to grossly overestimate the extent of the Muslim population, you would also have to equate Muslims with this reactionary, "anti-leftist law", which is islamophobic and shows a total ignorance of Islam.

Look, I went to school and Boy Scouts with a couple Muslim guys, and they were just like the rest of us only they wouldn't eat pork products. That kind of Muslim doesn't concern me. What does concern me is the 30% of British Muslim youths that would like to see the UK under Sharia law. Since the number of Islamists is growing rapidly due to immigration and much higher birth rates among Muslims than the rest of England, this is very significant.

Of course, Sharia law where it has come to pass in Iran or Afghanistan was the direct result of US interference in those countries and still others are staunch allies of the great western democracy which is the US.

Are you sore over the fact the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan failed? You sound like it.

I am a communist first of all, not a liberal. In the UK the term "liberal" has a slightly different meaning to what it has in the US I think. Liberals are the kind of people who read the Guardian

Liberals here are diet Communists.

I can tell you that communism is also in favour of the abolition of private property and the capitalist state.

Private property is one of the fundamental rights my country was founded on.

I can tell you, communists do not specifically favour having muslim only swimming baths unless muslims choose to have baths to be used by their communities only.

Oh, I believe that. Communists hate all religion equally.

Personally I think religion in a communist society will become more of a personal set of beliefs and the imposition of these silly traditions will be abolished.

Abolished by whom? I don't like radical Islam at all, but a Communist authority is no better for religious freedom.

I also oppose the oppression of women by christian individuals. It does happen. Wife-beating, rape, lower pay than men. All these things are grand british institutions.

Two out of those three if not all three are frowned upon deeply by Christians though. The Muslims say to go ahead and do it, using the Koran or the Hadith as official sanction. We don't have anything in the Bible that approaches this.

I also think, in my professional opinion as a communist, that if the article on the girl being unable to communicate with the asian students, making a meek protest and then being arrested, was true (and these rags are terrible liars and I dont doubt the racism was more pronounced than this) then this was an over reaction by the teacher.

Well, that's one thing we can agree on.

So there, communists dont "espouse" anything similar to this.

Communists want to overthrow traditional culture so they can replace it with their own.

However, the fact is that our gutter press reports all these things and have ignored much more serious instances of racism in which muslims and political correctness have not been the villains but are quite often, even more often, the victims.

Political correctness is an enemy of free speech, another fundamental right that my country fought for. Political correctness should just go away. Crimes against Muslims or anyone else I have a problem with because I believe in equal protection under the law.

 

[Steezie]

You support the weakening of traditional Western culture. That's all the Islamists need, and they will move in. They have a spine. The leftist policies of political correctness et al are aimed at removing society's existing spine, making it the perfect target. With a new spineless culture in place, you guys are sitting ducks. What's ironic is you all made this.

Are you always this reactionary?

 

[mahalia]

i'm a bit late (okay, a lot) entering into this conversation, but in response to the OP, here goes anyways:

i always feel that, while communism,marxism, socialism etc all look very attractive on paper, they just never seem to work in practice.

also, i agree with the person who said that no-one would vote for a candidate who didn't support capitalism, because of one thing. sure, capitalism has a lot of ups and downs, a huge gap beween the rich and the poor... but, capitalism allows you the freedom to rise above, and it allows you to rise equivalently to the effort you put in (yes, it doesn't always work like this) as opposed to socialism where sure, everyone is equal, but are they? are the pigs more equal than everyone else? and are people who work harder than others really just as equal, shouldn't they be allowed to receive all the benefits of putting in effort?

 

[ACougar]

This is sort of like asking if Cold is good or bad...

Pure communism only works if humans are at thier very best all the time. That's an unrealistic expectation, basing a society on an unrealistic expectation is doomed for failure.

Pure capitalism is the law of the jungle, every man for themself, ultimatly the few control all the wealth and power and the many are forced to resort to violence against the few or live in slavery.

A healthy balance between the two extremes is the only real viable solution. Enough communism to insure that the needs of all are honored and that humans are treated with dignity. Enough Capitalism to drive humans to excell and encourage competition. The only reasonable debate is on how and to what degree thier mixed.

 

[rppearso]

Capitialism is wonderful, you can rise up from being poor to living in a million dollar home, no one is forced to stay in any one class. People are rewarded according to there skills, the more complicated your skill set and the less people that can do your job the more money you will make and the better you will be treated, ie the market controls higher end wages not the government. People who are smart and creative will likely not conform to the ways of the stupid and ignorant, they will find ways around oppression and ways to maintain there quality of living. The people who are smart and creative will control ownership of resources and production, because thoes are the material things that are critical to a high standard of living. Communism is one of the best ways to loose your knowlage base (ie smart individuals) that is why china will never be a first world nation, they always have to outsource brain power to develope there infrastructure because anyone with some creativity or brains will leave. US companies are building plants over there because the labor is so cheap, all that is happening is an artifical industrail revolution, china is a peasant nation with a skewed male to female ratio, you cant expect people to work hard if theres not something in it for them other than through fear and intimidation or threat of death. The biggest theme I am hearing in this tread is people want something for nothing and whine because some people know how to generate wealth and take the time and sacrafice to build skill sets to increase there income. If you think you can work as a teller or clerk and share in the quality of life (ie ie material possesions) of a doctor who sacraficed years in school with little to no income and massive debt you have a serious disconnect. Why should someone who works hard and smart be required to give up some of there success to someone who is lazy or someone who works hard but refuses to engage there brain and work smarter. Helping the poor is a good thing but I dont think my land and assets should be chopped up into a commune for the benifit of thoes that could not build it on there own. people always forget what it takes to generate wealth and the sacrafice it takes they just see the end result and think to themselves where is my piece of the pie, that guy should divide up his assests and share with me because I want myn too, which are the thoughts of the foolish.

 

[rppearso]

Our country is being taken over without a shot being fired. This is the first nation that has had its demographics changed this much with out being a militarily conquoured nation. People use the excuse that this is an imagrant nation, which is true, but not to the extent that immigrants should be allowed to over stress our infrastructure. People need to be let in at a controled rate and should not be granted any financial benifits that leach off the hard work that was done by this nations existing tenants forefathers. there children should not be granted access to our school systems and be allowed to influance the next generation of americans, they need to generate there own wealth and carry there own weight.

 

[Sketcher]

Our country is being taken over without a shot being fired. This is the first nation that has had its demographics changed this much with out being a militarily conquoured nation. People use the excuse that this is an imagrant nation, which is true, but not to the extent that immigrants should be allowed to over stress our infrastructure. People need to be let in at a controled rate and should not be granted any financial benifits that leach off the hard work that was done by this nations existing tenants forefathers. there children should not be granted access to our school systems and be allowed to influance the next generation of americans, they need to generate there own wealth and carry there own weight.

I don't see how this relates to capitalism. My points on immigration in Europe were to show that socialist/leftist culture there is failing miserably.

 

[rppearso]

I don't see how this relates to capitalism. My points on immigration in Europe were to show that socialist/leftist culture there is failing miserably.

I see things starting to happen in america that are contrary to capitilism as I noted above and its kinda spooky almost like being conqoured by the borg.

 

[Pray4Che]

i'm a bit late (okay, a lot) entering into this conversation, but in response to the OP, here goes anyways:

i always feel that, while communism,marxism, socialism etc all look very attractive on paper, they just never seem to work in practice.

also, i agree with the person who said that no-one would vote for a candidate who didn't support capitalism, because of one thing. sure, capitalism has a lot of ups and downs, a huge gap beween the rich and the poor... but, capitalism allows you the freedom to rise above, and it allows you to rise equivalently to the effort you put in (yes, it doesn't always work like this) as opposed to socialism where sure, everyone is equal, but are they? are the pigs more equal than everyone else? and are people who work harder than others really just as equal, shouldn't they be allowed to receive all the benefits of putting in effort?

What a cliche of a post.

communism/socialism has worked in practice. From the earliest utopian communities run under worker's control to the running of the entire economy on a planned basis in the Soviet Union and to this day in Cuba. Interestingly there were 20 million people in poverty in Russia before the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are now over 200 million. Cuba has lower levels of illiteracy than parts of the US, has an equal life expectancy, and suffers from none of the problems that its neighbours in Latin America suffer. I am not saying that these societies are without there problems, and I do not support the Stalinist deformations which took place in these nations, but what do you mean by "never work"? This is patently false. It has been proven time and again that workers can run factories without bosses. It is being proven as we speak in Venezuela under the banner of factory occupations.

You also said "no-one would vote for a candidate who didn't support capitalism". So why has Chavez been reelected with 7 million votes in Venezuela? Why was Allende elected in Chile? Why were the Bolsheviks elected in the Soviet elections? Again, facts prove this to simply be false.

And joy, the Orwell reference. "pigs being more equal than others". You do know Orwell was a socialist right? He fought in the POUM in the Spanish Civil War. Of course the British and American establishment were not interested in helping the democratically elected Republicans (another example of people electing Socialist candidates) in their fight against Fascism.

 

[Pray4Che]

Are you sore over the fact the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan failed? You sound like it.

The US was pouring billions of dollars to the Mujihadeen before the Soviets invaded. I was merely showing up the hypocritical nature of the US government which doesn't care a bit for democracy or stability, but was prepared to support a group which is all the bad things you attribute to muslims in general.

You said nothing of course about the US intervention in Iran where they subverted a democratically elected government and installed the Shah as a cruel dictator, only to be overthrown as a direct result of his terrible rule and be replaced by these very guardians of Sharia law you so much despise.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Do you think capitalism is the best available economic system (as in it is the fairest, most productive, etc?).

If another system came along that didn't capitalise on the lower and middle classes, would you support it?

I am asking because of a conversation I recently had with a friend who insists that nobody would ever vote for a candidate that didn't support capitalism; I think that this is absurd because the vast majority of Americans are lower or middle class citizens, and would think it more fair and just to be paid more for their work, and the owners of their place of employment be paid less.

Thoughts, anyone?

Capitalism is one of the most evil and vile economic systems imaginable.

 

[Sketcher]

communism/socialism has worked in practice. From the earliest utopian communities run under worker's control to the running of the entire economy on a planned basis in the Soviet Union and to this day in Cuba.

The Soviet Union's economy collapsed and it's little friends - Cuba and North Korea - haven't recovered since.

Interestingly there were 20 million people in poverty in Russia before the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are now over 200 million.

That what the welfare state does to the mind. It retards it so people can't stand up on their own two feet.

I am not saying that these societies are without there problems, and I do not support the Stalinist deformations which took place in these nations, but what do you mean by "never work"? This is patently false.

The Stalinist deformations are what kept them running as long as they did run, and they were despicable means of doing so.

It has been proven time and again that workers can run factories without bosses. It is being proven as we speak in Venezuela under the banner of factory occupations.

"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

Also, how about them grocery shortages?

You also said "no-one would vote for a candidate who didn't support capitalism". So why has Chavez been reelected with 7 million votes in Venezuela? Why was Allende elected in Chile? Why were the Bolsheviks elected in the Soviet elections? Again, facts prove this to simply be false.

She's probably talking about within the US.

And joy, the Orwell reference. "pigs being more equal than others". You do know Orwell was a socialist right?

And yet there are so many themes that socialists have espoused which he portrayed as negative. Big Brother, for one.

 

[Sketcher]

The US was pouring billions of dollars to the Mujihadeen before the Soviets invaded. I was merely showing up the hypocritical nature of the US government which doesn't care a bit for democracy or stability, but was prepared to support a group which is all the bad things you attribute to muslims in general.

You said nothing of course about the US intervention in Iran where they subverted a democratically elected government and installed the Shah as a cruel dictator, only to be overthrown as a direct result of his terrible rule and be replaced by these very guardians of Sharia law you so much despise.

Like I said, they were better alternatives to Communist rule. Not by much obviously, but certainly the Soviets would have done as badly or worse with the countries you mention if they had their way.

 

[AlanGurvey]

Capitalism is a state of constant conflict.

 

[Pray4Che]

The Soviet Union's economy collapsed and it's little friends - Cuba and North Korea - haven't recovered since.

North Korea is a tiny mountainous country isolated from world trade. It is honestly no wonder that it is in its current state. As for Cuba, it has had to withstand a terrible and illegal embargo against its economy. Its cheap source of oil was taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. And as much as you would like to imagine that Cuba is now a failing and dying country, its economy is growing and it has one of the highest living standards of all Latin America; something you ignored in my post. It has lower illiteracy levels than the US. The city of Havana is one of the cleanest capitals in the world. This traditionally colonial nation has a life expectancy which is higher than parts of the US. It has one of the highest physician/population ratio of any third world country. This inspite of being only a few killometers from the world's most powerful imperialist nation!

And yet there are so many themes that socialists have espoused which he portrayed as negative. Big Brother, for one.

I challenge you to quote even one socialist who has ever "espoused" big brother...

That what the welfare state does to the mind. It retards it so people can't stand up on their own two feet.

You do realise that these 200 million people are in poverty after the fall of the soviet union. They were better off before this point. And your excuse is that all Russians (and presumably all Eastern Europeans) are retards?(!)

"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

Also, how about them grocery shortages?

What grocery shortage? Are you talking about the Irish potato famine or the Venezuelan factories run under worker's management?

The Stalinist deformations are what kept them running as long as they did run, and they were despicable means of doing so.

Please explain. I am curious how bureaucratic mismanagement was better than workers' democracy, and how these deformations were necessary to keep Communism going in the Soviet Union? The bureaucrats were a parasitic layer on the working class of Russia, and it was ultimately they who became the gangsters running Russian capitalism today, and they who considered it in their interests to revert to capitalism in the end. But if you have some better idea about how they actually sustained communism, please, go on...

She's probably talking about within the US.

Oh? She didn't state that she was talking about the US. Her comments were made in general. But, if you really think no one would vote for a socialist candidate in the US, think again. Eugene Debs managed to get 6% of the vote when running for president in 1920 - this he managed from in prison, in this "land of freedom"! The USofA has a proud history of socialist politics and labour struggle. The ideas of Marxism are by no means foreign to your country.

 

[Bulldog]

What a cliche of a post.

communism/socialism has worked in practice. From the earliest utopian communities run under worker's control

Can be a bit more specific?

to the running of the entire economy on a planned basis in the Soviet Union and to this day in Cuba.

Do you seriously view the Soviet Union and Cuba as successes?

Interestingly there were 20 million people in poverty in Russia before the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are now over 200 million.

The latest estimates have Russia's population at about 142 million. How can there be more poor people in Russia than there are people in Russia?

Cuba has lower levels of illiteracy than parts of the US, has an equal life expectancy

And socialism/communism is to thank for this?

and suffers from none of the problems that its neighbours in Latin America suffer.

How so?

am not saying that these societies are without there problems, and I do not support the Stalinist deformations which took place in these nations, but what do you mean by "never work"? This is patently false. It has been proven time and again that workers can run factories without bosses. It is being proven as we speak in Venezuela under the banner of factory occupations.

Worker-run busniess do exist, but the reason they're generally ineffecient. If they actually worked in comparison with other business, then it makes sense that we would see more of them in the free market, but we don't.