The Capitalism Debate!!!!

The Capitalism Debate!!!! [+ favourites]

Ok before all the conservatives and socialists and all the rest start up about it im merely asking about its worth and revlevance in modern society. Im not for or against cuase theres good and bad things too it, well obviously you might not see either or, depending pon your veiw point.

The good points in the end of it all are the boosted economy and increase in democracy aswell... there are probaly plenty more aswell and i realise this for those who will jump down my throat for that. lol

But the bads points could also be pinned down to the "on the back of the working class" saying. the rich are there becuase of the working class and blah blah blah. Also the rumers of it being one the primary reasons for poverty, something i heard dont get at me for it.

I know there are gonna be many different opinions on it but if you wanna share yours im more than happy to read it.

"everything but never anything"

Your bad point is actually a positive. Our rich are creating the jobs to employ our middle class. Look at Bill Gates, Michael Jobs, etc. Capitalism creates a desire, a dream, an incentive to succeed. This is why inventions and discoveries are focused in democracies. Why invent something if you can not enjoy the financial benefits. From pharmaceuticals to high tech, capitalism breeds the incentive and desire. You just don't see this in socialist, communistic, or dictatorship type countries. Can you name a non capitalistic country where the middle class is better off? How about the poor, can you name a country where the poor are better off?

Darwinian evolution functions on the level of societies and states as well as individual organisms.

Right now, the choice is simple, you can either be capitalist, or dead. All none capitalist states are either piss poor (whose working class is far far poorer then the US equivalent) or have since died.

Examples include :
- Cuba
- North Korea
- all eastern Europe
- a gazillion socialist/isolationist countries in Africa
- Yugoslavia
- the USSR
Note that the USSR had MASSIVE resources to be found in the Russian Empire (still not exploited enough) and yet still found itself a backward centralized state dominated by bureaucracy.

Remember : it is a thousand times better to be unequaly rich then to be equaly poor.

Of course, just being capitalist doesn't mean automatic success. There are of course many many stories of capitalist countries struggling and failing. However, being capitalist allows the possibility of success. Being socialist/commie means inevitable :
- centralization
- bureaucracy
- economic failure
- poverty for all
- spiral into dictatorship

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

Good to see we agree, dumbteen

Good point i like the link between the evolution theory...very classy lol

"everything but never anything"

quote:

---

Good point i like the link between the evolution theory

---

quote:

---

the choice is simple, you can either be capitalist, or dead. All none capitalist states are either piss poor (whose working class is far far poorer then the US equivalent) or have since died.

---

quote:

---

Remember : it is a thousand times better to be unequaly rich then to be equaly poor.

---

quote:

---

being capitalist allows the possibility of success.

---

quote:

---

Why invent something if you can not enjoy the financial benefits. From pharmaceuticals to high tech, capitalism breeds the incentive and desire.

---

quote:

---

Yugoslavia

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

"Nature has many examples of individual sacrifice for the groub, as well as cooperative organization instead of competative?"
I don't mean that capitalist societies in nature are the most succesful.

I mean that the only societies which perpetuate themselves are the 'best' ones. They happen to be capitalist and they will be eventually replaced by a better one.

"I noticed the list included lands that are not as rich in natural resources as the USA so to compare these to us is a biased judgement to begin with."
Excuse me, the USSR and China are extremely abundant in resources.
USSR was an economic mess.
China only succeeded when it became a free market nation.
The Netherlands/France/Germany/Japan have NO resources left, and yet are still rich countries (despite some recent stagnation). They are far far richer then the communist countries were at their peak.

Resources can help a country, but modern economies are based on manufactured goods, not raw resources.

" Well everyone has their own opinion."
If we want wealth, then its simple math. The simple fact is, a poor person in the US was better off then an average person in the USSR.

"fail like the European nations which colonial activities lead to their own doom. "
Funny you mention them. Imperialism is not free market capitalism.

" Ya, I owned one of those yugo cars."
Sentiments asside. Yugoslavia was non-russian version of communism. It floundered like other communist models. It lead to economic failure, civil war and an attempted genocide.

I don't know why people debate this anymore. If wealth is good, then capitalism is the best model so far. If you don't like wealth, well that's fine, you are free to not work.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

quote:

---

I don't mean that capitalist societies in nature are the most succesful.

---

quote:

---

Excuse me, the USSR and China are extremely abundant in resources.

---

quote:

---

but modern economies are based on manufactured goods, not raw resources.

---

quote:

---

Yugoslavia was non-russian version of communism. It floundered like other communist models. It lead to economic failure

---

quote:

---

If wealth is good, then capitalism is the best model so far

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

How do you explain the fact that now that China is capitalist, it is the second greatest power in the world?

How do you explain that Japan and all Western European countries are now rich despite the fact they have no more resources?

The simple fact is, in free market world, you can buy resources. Rich countries do that.

And the second simple fact is that a state economy dragged down by bureaucracy and centralization cannot succeed. Better, they have consistently failed in the past (did you know North Korea was the industrial center of Korea before the Cold War?)

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

quote:

---

How do you explain the fact that now that China is capitalist, it is the second greatest power in the world?

---

quote:

---

China only succeeded when it became a free market nation.

---

quote:

---

Japan and all Western European countries are now rich

---

quote:

---

The simple fact is, in free market world, you can buy resources. Rich countries do that.

---

quote:

---

did you know North Korea was the industrial center of Korea before the Cold War?

---

quote:

---

Capitalism creates a desire, a dream, an incentive to succeed.

---

quote:

---

The 'riches' ones happen to be capitalist and they will be eventually replaced by a better forms of government.

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[  Edited by cturtle at   ]

"Is the main land of China truly capitalist?"
It has opened its markets, yes.

It is not DEMOCRATIC, it is capitalist. Capitalist, with lots of leftover socialist bureaucracy.

"Taiwan & China boiled down too but to say that China has become capitalist maybe a bit of a stretch. "
No it isn't. It claims to be commie, just as the french left wing parties claim to be socialist. Many of its markets have been opened up.

" but there is the little rub of those who don't want to sell, they can be problem. "
Socialism doesn't solve that problem either. If a country needs a resource, communist or not, it might be motivated to fight for it.

The difference with capitalism is that true adherents will let the Free Market decide who buys and sells.

" No, I wasn't but not a surprise, kind of like our own civil war, eh? "
My point is. North Korea started the economic engine of Korea. 50 years later, its people are starving and it is a thousand times poorer then its Southern neighbors.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

little confusing?

quote:

---

"Is the main land of China truly capitalist?" It has opened its markets, yes.
it is capitalist. Capitalist, with lots of leftover socialist bureaucracy.

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

I don't understand the plant metaphore.

" Some countries may never develope to our level of industrialization doesn't deny their right of self-determination."
The problem is that poverty entails political instability. People invoke the word 'Democracy' as if that's what people have always wanted. People care much more about the food on their plate and whether or not they'll have a job tomorow.

Democracies in economic hardship often fail. Pre WW2 Japan/Italy/Germany for example; or any number of African countries (the British leave the country with a democratic constitution, it is usually a matter of years before it fails). Democratic revolutions (as seen in the french revolution) nearly always come about from a middle class : people who already have there basic needs and have a reasonable economy. If there is a weak economy, as in Russia or Iran or China, the revolution has its support not from a minute middle class, but from the peasants or workers. These revolutions fall into immediate dictatorship (Soviet Union, Islamic Republic of Iran, People's Republic of China) because there is no educated middle class that influences the revolutionaries, only ignorant (politically, I mean) peasants.

Other countries like Taiwan or South Korea, became rich, and THEN, because of their middle class demanded their rights. These democracies have succeeded; while dozens of democratic poor countries have failed.

Conclusion : a healthy economy is very important to maintaining and creating democracy and only rarely is democracy an end, rather democracy is a necessary transition once you become wealthy.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

quote:

---

Conclusion : rather democracy is a necessary transition once you become wealthy.

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

Wealth is also an absolute concept :
- you are wealthy because the average american's main worry about food is having too much
- you have a car
- you have a gazillion household appliances from the washing machine to the fridge
- etc...

Now, whether or not being wealthy makes us happier is another question. What is certain is that being wealthy, and the political and social stability it entails, is only possible in a capitalist society.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"