Copenhagen Marxfest Cheers as Chavez Condemns Capitalism

Communism didn't work, no point in bringing it up as no one is trying to implement it.

Capitalism isn't working either, for the majority of people.

And even some of the people it isn't working for have been tricked into thinking it's working in their own best interest.

It's like they've let you into the exclusive capitalists club ... but you're the one checking their coats. It must be great to be on the winning team! I get to hold the jackets of the winners!

Of course, there's no real point in debating this. No sucker really wants to know that he's been suckered ... he'd rather try and convince the rest of us to be suckers as well.

 

If using the collective buying power of a group to negotiate pricing and utilizing the efficiencies of scale is Marxist, count me in.

 

If the entire world were living the average American lifestyle, we as a species would be extinct. Or at least forced to some morally skeptical alternatives (forced abortions, genetically modified crops etc.). Just be happy capitalism keeps 2/3rds of the world subdued and 1/3rd of the world starving, it's why we can be so clever on this Internet thing.

Oh, also, following the whole Marx as absolute evil theory, do you who hate Marx agree with child labor?

 

Obama?

 

Is this tongue-in-cheek rhetoric? ? Coming from you, I don't think so.

Speaking for myself, capitalism is working great for me. I could go on all day of all the cost of goods that capitalism has worked for me. For example, if those greedy bastards at Walmart who are making billions ... if they would only give it back to their employees. Nevermind the hundreds of dollars they save the consumer. There are hundreds of examples on how capitalism works for everyone of us.

You've been brainwashed into believing that only greedy, selfish, immoral are capitalists.

 

It works for us. Whether or not it will work for our children or for others in this world is very questionable.

I will say that capitalism is hands down the best system for converting resources into high standards of living for a sizable minority of people. However, at a certain point, the system demands that either this minority accept lower standards of living or that the majority remains relatively disenfranchised and we must move from planet to planet like a virus. True, capitalism is responsible for many of the innovations that have propelled the notion of a standard of living into existence; however, if we wish to build on this concept and expand on it for EVERY human being, modifications and restraints must be accepted.

 

Everytime you guys say "capitalism' you should say "regulated capitalism" because without governmental regulation of business we would all owe our souls to the company store. (obscure?)



Unregulated capitalism would ultimately result in one monopoly owning everything just the same as unfettered communism would kill risk, effort and innovation. So, once you've accepted that commerce must be regulated it's merely a matter of to what degree of socialism you want to accept. And with our private money dependent elections system that is always going to be limited. Look no further than the useless Health Reform Bill and you can see that Money still makes the rules.

 

16 tons Dubious, 16 tons

that's a lot of CO2

 

FWIW, I think that Moore and Chavez have gotten it wrong. The problem isn't capitalism, it is corporatism, defined as having a government that is more responsive to corporations than to constituents. This is exactly the thing that the founders were trying to avoid. They felt that the East India Tea Company got more of a say in the way they were governed than the people did. The titled "nobles" that served as governors were corrupt and not responsive to the people, so we deposed them with the words "We, The People."

When we saw that Standard Oil and the like were ruining capitalism for everyone else, we set up antitrust laws to keep corporations from running over people. This is what our system of government is ultimately about, making sure that people's behavior doesn't adversely affect others. If we all behaved well, government would ultimately be rendered unnecessary.

Corporations are an interesting construct that has morphed dramatically in the last several decades. They used to be synonymous with the country in which they were founded, but have branched out and become worldwide entities without any particular allegiance except their shareholders. They teach you in business school to test the limits of the laws that exist and to try changing the laws to benefit the firm. So, we have ended up with incredibly powerful interests directly tied to and influencing government policy, often to the detriment of the individual.

IMO, we need to get back to the individual's rights and responsibilities in this world. The corporations, IMO, should be barred from ever trying to influence policy. They have no allegiance to the United States where at least the people are more likely to be patriots. Let's go for a capitalist system without the corporatism.

 

Shhh....you'll wake some brain cells here.

 

If it were not for the potential to earn a higher standard of living, nobody would put themselves through what it takes to become a doctor, nor would they continue to work the hours necessary to be a doctor once the training is complete.

Doctors may make a lot of money, but they sacrifice like crazy to get to that point and they spend holidays and weekends on call in addition to hours dictating charts once seeing patients is through for the day.

In short, it is not exactly a care free existence.

If they could do something else that is a 9 to 5 job with no need for school followed by residency and internship and make the same money, they would likely do just that.

 

And that's why there are no doctors in Cuba.

 

Capitalism will lead to the end of the planet unless it is extraordinarily regulated to the point where some might call it socialism.

If we have to wait until multinational corporations can maximize their profits in the next quarter by reducing greenhouse gases we are all doomed. These gasses will have to be reduced; markets be damned. Free market principles will have to be recognized for what they are-- a useful tool for regulating some human activties, but not others that are of vital importance. A tough nut for those who like like simple models the world like libertarians and conservatives. I think this is why they are so driven to deny climate change.

 

Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not but doesn't Cuba have one of the best doctor-patient ratios. Now maybe you can argue with poor conditions of the facilities but not doctors.

 

Although you also advocate a simplistic model...hand everything over to government. After all...they have our best interests at heart.

The fact is that either extreme (pure capitalism or pure socialism) do not work. The most workable solution is a hybrid. One in which market forces work as they should while government sets reasonable regulation (ie reduction of greenhouse gases and labor regulation). We have this already. See the Clean Water Act, etc etc etc.

 

When people were enslaved and forced into indentured servitude, we needed what some would call "socialism" to step in and stop the despicable practice.

When women were denied the right to vote, we needed what some would call "socialism" to step in and allow them equal access to the ballot box.

When corporations were working people (including children) 16 hour days, we needed what some would call "socialism" to step in and prevent the abuses.

When the banks ran their risks up so high that it caused the Great Depression, we needed what some would call "socialism" to step in and regulate them so that they would not take massive risks with depositors' money.

When the elderly were, by and large, a poverty stricken underclass, we needed what some would call "socialism" to step in and give them a safety net that would allow them to live out the final years of their lives with at least a modicum of dignity.

When corporations were dumping things like PCBs into streams and rivers, we needed what some would call "socialism" to step in and stop them from destroying the environment.

American history is replete with examples of the government stepping in to correct abuses, most of which were heaped upon the general populace by corporations. You can call it "socialism" all you like, but it is the way America works. Climate change is the latest in a long line of problems with which the government has had to wrestle. Personally, I think there are even better reasons for aggressively lowering our CO2 output, but no matter which reason you want to cite, it is the government that will ultimately have to put down its foot because industry and the public will always go for the cheapest option.

 

As you are among the most robotic poster here, to watch you execute your slavish subroutines without making a single critical or creative thought is most appropriate. Tell me, is your programming in BASIC? I used to do a bit of that as a child on the C64.

Let me see if I can decipher them:

10 PRINT "HELLO I AM SHOVEL FACE"
20 INPUT "YOU ARE A LIBERAL RIGHT? Y/N," A$
30 IF A$ = Y, THEN GOTO 40
40 PRINT "I GUESS YOU ARE A SOCIALIST THEN TOO COMMIE!!!"
50 END

Great program.....really top notch stuff! you and the rest of the hive-minded teabaggers are really ahead of your time. Who needs black helicopters when you already have very stupid drones.