Jump to content

A Failure of Capitalism?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree that a true Democracy isn't a good thing either, but a republic would be better to serve the people.

How so? Ruling the people with elected officials still being controlled by lobbyists is absolutely dangerous as we already see. The constitution is a living document. You can't live by a charter several hundred years old when new circumstances arise every day. Either the people democratically decide the outcome or we have given the power to the leaders. In the end, the chances of tyranny are also great.

How would you expect to become a republic safe from lobbyists without a total revamp?

Does a Capitalist-Republic really make sense? It's pretty much what we have now. A system that serves the minority.

A fine example of the dangerous activity is The Patriot Act. I don't really think you can argue it protected the rights of the individual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Marxist doctrine requires a world revolution. It was never attempted. Now you are simply speculating.

Utter nonsense. Nowhere does Marx ever say that a world revolution is necessary for communism to succeed in any given country. In fact, he quite clearly believed the opposite as he argued that revolutions could only be successful in advanced industrial nations like Britain and Germany, while countries like Russia and China did not even have a real proletariat yet, so they were not even remotely ready for a revolution.

What are you arguing here. You are pulling out predictions as a factual basis? :huh:

Well actually I'm doing a simple projection, like if Michael Turner rushes for 100 yards against the Fins he'd be on pace for 1600 for the season. The same can be done with Lenin's death toll if you extend it to the number of years Stalin ruled. Trotsky, as I've already said, was even more interested in removing "hostile" elements than Stalin, so we could expect that number to be even higher.

In response to the Cheka:

And how exactly does this differ from Stalin's own rationale for his own purges?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my final response to this as I have been on this for hours now:

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" does not mean a dictator to control the working class as Stalin demonstrated. It is an ideal of the Proletariat being in control.

That is where so many articles and books dismiss the perversion of Stalinism. The methods he tried using to carry the torch were NOT of Marxist-Leninist theory. Even Lenin before his death still acknowledged that European revolution needed to be achieved before complete Socialism in the Soviet Union.

Just because Stalin was SAYING he was continuing what Lenin had planned, he was lying in order to cut Trotsky out of the picture.

Lenin never insisted that the state should rule the Proletariat. To do so would completely contradict his belief in Marxism and the dictatorship of the Proletariat. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an enemy to what Lenin wanted to create. There was never meant to be a "government owning of anything." There was actually meant to be NO STATE.

I'm sorry if the paranoid capitalist rhetoric about the efforts for Communism confuse you.

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is my final response to this as I have been on this for hours now:

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" does not mean a dictator to control the working class as Stalin demonstrated. It is an ideal of the Proletariat being in control.

That is where so many articles and books dismiss the perversion of Stalinism. The methods he tried using to carry the torch were NOT of Marxist-Leninist theory. Even Lenin before his death still acknowledged that European revolution needed to be achieved before complete Socialism in the Soviet Union.

Just because Stalin was SAYING he was continuing what Lenin had planned, he was lying in order to cut Trotsky out of the picture.

Lenin never insisted that the state should rule the Proletariat. To do so would completely contradict his belief in Marxism and the dictatorship of the Proletariat. Stalin was a counter-revolutionary and an enemy to what Lenin wanted to create. There was never meant to be a "government owning of anything." There was actually meant to be NO STATE.

I'm sorry if the paranoid capitalist rhetoric about the efforts for Communism confuse you.

My response to this is simply that you cannot have a system without a form of leadership. The Proletariat is simply a class, and is amorphous as any society. Ultimately, the Proletariat will always be sacrificing for a system, and without individual economic liberty, they have little to no say in how their role will develop as they are secondary to the whole. Maintaining control and direction of the "whole" is why Marxism lends itself to authoritarianism.

While I think you're looney to buy into the communism/marxism philosophy, I'll give you credit for trying to be rational in your expressions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My response to this is simply that you cannot have a system without a form of leadership. The Proletariat is simply a class, and is amorphous as any society. Ultimately, the Proletariat will always be sacrificing for a system, and without individual economic liberty, they have little to no say in how their role will develop as they are secondary to the whole. Maintaining control and direction of the "whole" is why Marxism lends itself to authoritarianism.

While I think you're looney to buy into the communism/marxism philosophy, I'll give you credit for trying to be rational in your expressions.

:rolleyes:

I'm looney to not subscribe to the classic proven failure that is Capitalism. Shame on me for supporting something that would also improve MY situation. Shame on me for not falling for the "giving everything to the elite is good for me! yay!" philosophy among the festival of fools.

Link to post
Share on other sites
:rolleyes:

I'm looney to not subscribe to the classic proven failure that is Capitalism. Shame on me for supporting something that would also improve MY situation. Shame on me for not falling for the "giving everything to the elite is good for me! yay!" philosophy among the festival of fools.

Oh the irony of griping about the failure of Capitalism and how only the elite benefit, while typing on a computer, communicating over an Internet, viewing websites based upon, using software developed, sitting on piece of furniture, sipping your favorite drink, etc. etc., innovated, created, and enabled by the very system you claim to be a "festival of fools".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh the irony of griping about the failure of Capitalism and how only the elite benefit, while typing on a computer, communicating over an Internet, viewing websites based upon, using software developed, sitting on piece of furniture, sipping your favorite drink, etc. etc., innovated, created, and enabled by the very system you claim to be a "festival of fools".

Like these things are somehow only attainable through capitalism? :lol:

Without Capitalism, we'd all be drinking pond water and sitting on rocks while chiseling words on a stone tablet. I also didn't realize that Capitalism invented a chair! :o

And yes Capitalism is a failure. Anytime a crash is near, it must use Socialism to SAVE ITSELF!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh the irony of griping about the failure of Capitalism and how only the elite benefit, while typing on a computer, communicating over an Internet, viewing websites based upon, using software developed, sitting on piece of furniture, sipping your favorite drink, etc. etc., innovated, created, and enabled by the very system you claim to be a "festival of fools".

The real irony is a self proclaimed marxist and anti-capitalist who uses anarchy symbols for his avatar....

Link to post
Share on other sites
The real irony is a self proclaimed marxist and anti-capitalist who uses anarchy symbols for his avatar....

Apparently you aren't informed. Such things as Anarcho-Syndicalism and Marxists aren't very different. The only difference is the comprehension of the "Dictator of the Proletariat" which is always confused to mean a leader over the workers. But continue with your pretentious point. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like these things are somehow only attainable through capitalism? :lol:

Without Capitalism, we'd all be drinking pond water and sitting on rocks while chiseling words on a stone tablet. I also didn't realize that Capitalism invented a chair! :o

And yes Capitalism is a failure. Anytime a crash is near, it must use Socialism to SAVE ITSELF!

Now we're back to contradicting bunk, which is why I didn't want to enter this discussion in the first place. Shame on me for jumping in after your goading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now we're back to contradicting bunk, which is why I didn't want to enter this discussion in the first place. Shame on me for jumping in after your goading.

No, excuse you for calling names in a rational discussion that you just don't agree with.

"Hey, I don't agree with it so those I don't agree with are looney."

Silly me for supporting a majority rule and a result of that rule would actually.......support the majority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently you aren't informed. Such things as Anarcho-Syndicalism and Marxists aren't very different. The only difference is the comprehension of the "Dictator of the Proletariat" which is always confused to mean a leader over the workers. But continue with your pretentious point. ;)

Anarcho-syndicalists... I'll give you that, but I don't believe they are really anarchist. Then again, I favor myself an anarcho-capitalist, but I don't believe it's real anarchism, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anarcho-syndicalists... I'll give you that, but I don't believe they are really anarchist. Then again, I favor myself an anarcho-capitalist, but I don't believe it's real anarchism, either.

Basing it off of what? That Anarchists are all clumped together or that they are referred to as Nihilists? Yeah, another misconception.

I will concede that at least with Anarcho-Capitalism, it is a more balanced system than what we currently have. Considering it would help rid us of the lobbyists who truly control Washington, there would be a better chance that the majority would be involved in that success. But without a governing majority of equals in a no class system, the Capitalist Anarchist way would create more chaos and a total conflict between classes. With Capitalism in any picture, there will always be an exploited class. Couple with it the removal of state and you would eventually have a worker's revolution that would eventually end in Socialism and then Communism.

Anarcho-Capitalism is comparable to the beginning stages of the worker's revolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Basing it off of what? That Anarchists are all clumped together or that they are referred to as Nihilists? Yeah, another misconception.

I will concede that at least with Anarcho-Capitalism, it is a more balanced system than what we currently have. Considering it would help rid us of the lobbyists who truly control Washington, there would be a better chance that the majority would be involved in that success. But without a governing majority of equals in a no class system, the Capitalist Anarchist way would create more chaos and a total conflict between classes. With Capitalism in any picture, there will always be an exploited class. Couple with it the removal of state and you would eventually have a worker's revolution that would eventually end in Socialism and then Communism.

Anarcho-Capitalism is comparable to the beginning stages of the worker's revolution.

Now you are simply speculating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

? According to what? FDR and Obama? Get real...the war machine of WWII is what saved us at that time and led the US into the biggest period of economic boom the world has ever seen. FDR's Alphabet soup and Obama's " I know nothing about economics and will keep printing money" policies will be the failure of the US economy, not the fact that true innovation leads to a class that is richer than lazy people who do not want to work for anything. You must have grown up recently when there are no winners in sports, everyone is given a trophy and sings the Barney theme song. AND I will ask AGAIN WHO IS THE WORKING CLASS IN AMERICA? Are you saying that someone who applies themselves and gets a college education and dares to make more than a dip **** who messes around in school is unfair?

Link to post
Share on other sites
true innovation leads to a class that is richer than lazy people who do not want to work for anything.

<_<

Real classy to throw out more generalizations with a bigot flavor to them.

Let me ask you something:

Without any form of Socialistic revisions to our current system, how do these people get into schools? Yeah, it's real cute to make a small tap into Socialism but attribute it's success to Capitalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
<_<

Real classy to throw out more generalizations with a bigot flavor to them.

Let me ask you something:

Without any form of Socialistic revisions to our current system, how do these people get into schools? Yeah, it's real cute to make a small tap into Socialism but attribute it's success to Capitalism.

Real classy to side step the rest of the post and single out what you want out of context B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
<_<

Real classy to throw out more generalizations with a bigot flavor to them.

Let me ask you something:

Without any form of Socialistic revisions to our current system, how do these people get into schools? Yeah, it's real cute to make a small tap into Socialism but attribute it's success to Capitalism.

What is bigoted about people being lazy? I drive down the street everyday and see help wanted signs everywhere. I know that if I needed a job I would go get one. I do not think that I am better than working anywhere if it meant food for my family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Real classy to side step the rest of the post and single out what you want out of context B)

It's the only thing that made any sense because the whole structure of your post was whacky.

Plus, when you flash a disturbing motive of your thinking in the post, it is more important than the result of that thinking.

When I'm looking for a reason to why you think that way and I see you make a sh#tty, unconfirmed(only speculative of millions of people you don't know) claim that they are all too lazy, the rest of your post just reeks of sh#t.

I could name 5 people I've worked with who could work you under the table and have you in a fetal position begging for a break but no, let's just classify all of the struggling workers into a "lazy" category.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What is bigoted about people being lazy? I drive down the street everyday and see help wanted signs everywhere. I know that if I needed a job I would go get one. I do not think that I am better than working anywhere if it meant food for my family.

It is bigoted because you see a few people and simply use that basis to classify a whole massive group of people you don't know or understand. Take a drive by the unemployment office and check the parking lot. Don't spout out crap about how "you saw a few help wanted signs in a convenient store window" and think that millions of people could all apply for that job.

I hope you could ever think that women are not typically hired for a lot of night shift jobs in stores like that because of the increased danger.

It's bigoted because you are judging them from the outside with preconceived notions about them.

Totally dismiss that there is a huge swarm of layoffs going around and a lot of full time jobs have reduced hours to make them part time jobs thus meaning there are zero benefit packages available. Make it real easy and simple sounding, don't ya?

Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL so the removal of state while keeping the private economic structure wouldn't result in chaos?

Just who would be there to control the masses after their piece of the pie? No one. Resulting in what? Come on.....you can say it.

I'm talking about the assumption that removal of the state while keeping no private economic would be any different. How are you going to enforce collectivism? I will never, ever live or work for anyone other than myself. I will never give up my private property. How are you going to make me conform to your views?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...