Anarchism

[Sociocidal]

is it really that awful for everyone here? Or are we all just a part of this 1%?

Were part of the 10%.. For now... considering the median income of an American house hold is $50,233.00 For Ireland is $35900 and for England is $50,233.00, while for the likes of Ethiopia is $100. We don't live in a divided economic world any more, so the old capitalist ideas are highly out dated, they were after all developed in the 1700's.

a) Easy there Karl Marx, that view is nothing but left wing propaganda. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that the whole world is in ruins because of it. Capitalism works for me and my family, and we are lower middle class. But you are right, only the rich benefit through capitalism.

b) and even if it was 1% then yes, because it is better than the 0% that would benefit from communism or anarchism.

a) Capitalisms effect on the world is poverty, starvation, war and disease out breaks that are easily preventable. It may work for you and your family, but what about the other billions of people you share the world with? A fair price for third world distributors and farmers so the can feed and send there children to school at the cost of not getting a new car this year? Seems pretty small price to me. This is not "left wing propaganda", its moral responsibility in an ever shrinking world.

b)how would 0% benefit? surly if the 99% have there lot bettered then that's a much larger proportion of benefits??

[straightXed]

Were part of the 10%.. For now... considering the median income of an American house hold is $50,233.00 For Ireland is $35900 and for England is $50,233.00, while for the likes of Ethiopia is $100. We don't live in a divided economic world any more, so the old capitalist ideas are highly out dated, they were after all developed in the 1700's.

Out of interest how would anarchy help ethopia? What would change in the poor agriculture and drought issues? Would places with much less to trade become an underclass within this anarchy ideal or would there be a structure with caveats to avoid this?

[mouseman004]

Were part of the 10%.. For now... considering the median income of an American house hold is $50,233.00 For Ireland is $35900 and for England is $50,233.00, while for the likes of Ethiopia is $100. We don't live in a divided economic world any more, so the old capitalist ideas are highly out dated, they were after all developed in the 1700's.



a) Capitalisms effect on the world is poverty, starvation, war and disease out breaks that are easily preventable. It may work for you and your family, but what about the other billions of people you share the world with? A fair price for third world distributors and farmers so the can feed and send there children to school at the cost of not getting a new car this year? Seems pretty small price to me. This is not "left wing propaganda", its moral responsibility in an ever shrinking world.

b)how would 0% benefit? surly if the 99% have there lot bettered then that's a much larger proportion of benefits??

So there have been no diseases cured during the existence of capitalism? So there hasn't been any development in any third world countries? Technological development hasn't existed? So the world has crumbled under the tyranny that is capitalism?

I don't understand where you all get the idea that capitalism is the cause of all of the world's problems. There are hundreds of factors that contribute to the disease, war and poor economic conditions in places like africa, but you all choose to place the blame on capitalism. The problems that exist within capitalism are caused by people, not the system. These same people would be the ones who exist in a communist society, an anarchist society, or any form of political organisation. I don't understand why you have the idea that without capitalism, human nature and the human mind would suddenly be compeltely different and flawless. And I also fail to understand how you can claim that the majority of the world is hurt by capitalism, when that is not even close to being true.

And for curiousity sake, how is it moral responsibility to suggest the capitalism only benefits the ruling class, when that fact is not even close to being accurate?

[xGriffox]

So there have been no diseases cured during the existence of capitalism? So there hasn't been any development in any third world countries? Technological development hasn't existed? So the world has crumbled under the tyranny that is capitalism?

he's saying that it has benefited a few but left out many.

I don't understand where you all get the idea that capitalism is the cause of all of the world's problems. There are hundreds of factors that contribute to the disease, war and poor economic conditions in places like africa, but you all choose to place the blame on capitalism. The problems that exist within capitalism are caused by people, not the system. These same people would be the ones who exist in a communist society, an anarchist society, or any form of political organisation. I don't understand why you have the idea that without capitalism, human nature and the human mind would suddenly be compeltely different and flawless.

the human nature argument is moot. Human nature produces nothing definite. Humans can love just as easily as they can hate and they can cooperate just as easily as they can squabble. From my own observations it is the environment that has the true effect on the way humans act, not their species.

And I also fail to understand how you can claim that the majority of the world is hurt by capitalism, when that is not even close to being true.

are you kidding? Look at what imperialism (or "exploration" as it used to be called) and neo-imperialism (the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) have done to most "developing" countries. This isn't some fucking joke nor is it an abstract idea; people are suffering from these things and in some cases have been for centuries.

[Sociocidal]

So there have been no diseases cured during the existence of capitalism? So there hasn't been any development in any third world countries? Technological development hasn't existed? So the world has crumbled under the tyranny that is capitalism?

There has been development, but Germany went through ferocious development under Hitler, doesn't justify his regime. The curing of diseases is not however the result of capitalism, nor is technological development, that's the insanely fantastic miracle that is human invention and ingenuity. Capitalism would have you sell the technology, not share it. Under capitalism, a treatment is the profitable line of research, not a cure. Why do you think there are so many "treatments" and so few cures? The idea that capitalism gives good health care can be oh so easily refuted when you compare the Private health care system of the United States to the universal health care systems of Europe and Cuba.

There are hundreds of factors that contribute to the disease, war and poor economic conditions in places like africa, but you all choose to place the blame on capitalism. The problems that exist within capitalism are caused by people, not the system. These same people would be the ones who exist in a communist society, an anarchist society, or any form of political organisation. I don't understand why you have the idea that without capitalism, human nature and the human mind would suddenly be compeltely different and flawless.

What factors exactly? They're race?? Disease isn't caused by capitalism, but the reason why the poorest of this world don't have the cures and treatments they need to prevent simple illness killing millions, or why so many children die of starvation is capitalism. Its the pyramid of capitalism that causes poverty. What are you under the impression causes poverty? Without the the capitalist system the resulting poverty would not be there. The third world is in poverty because the first world lives in such lavish luxury.
This is a direct result of the archaic system that is capitalism, and its bastard child neo-liberalism.

The idea however that the world would be perfect without capitalism is incredibly naive. I have never once stated that human nature would change without capitalism, if you'll look at my first post you'll see i stated that's why it currently could not work. We are as a speices too selfish and violent, that selfishness is unfortunate rewarded in capitalist society, either way you look at it change is needed. Real change. Not Obama-this-will-get-me-elected change..

So far the most effective modern system of government and market structure is A Social Democracy with Free Market. The Banking system should be nationalised and a fund always available for the nationalisation of factories should the collapse, this to save jobs, not the pockets of the rich.

[xsecx]

There has been development, but Germany went through ferocious development under Hitler, doesn't justify his regime. The curing of diseases is not however the result of capitalism, nor is technological development, that's the insanely fantastic miracle that is human invention and ingenuity. Capitalism would have you sell the technology, not share it. Under capitalism, a treatment is the profitable line of research, not a cure. Why do you think there are so many "treatments" and so few cures? The idea that capitalism gives good health care can be oh so easily refuted when you compare the Private health care system of the United States to the universal health care systems of Europe and Cuba.

you automatically lose an argument. when you go straight to hitler. This isn't a fair statement since capitalism doesn't exist in a bubble and there have been many things that have been side effects of research that was funded by capitalism that has nothing to do with profit. Like everything that was created during the space race.

What factors exactly? They're race?? Disease isn't caused by capitalism, but the reason why the poorest of this world don't have the cures and treatments they need to prevent simple illness killing millions, or why so many children die of starvation is capitalism. Its the pyramid of capitalism that causes poverty. What are you under the impression causes poverty? Without the the capitalist system the resulting poverty would not be there. The third world is in poverty because the first world lives in such lavish luxury.
This is a direct result of the archaic system that is capitalism, and its bastard child neo-liberalism.

This is a massive over simplification of things. The actual reality is that living conditions across the world have improved year over year. Infant death rates are down and populations are living longer. If you think that things aren't getting better in the third world then I'd really like to know why.

The idea however that the world would be perfect without capitalism is incredibly naive. I have never once stated that human nature would change without capitalism, if you'll look at my first post you'll see i stated that's why it currently could not work. We are as a speices too selfish and violent, that selfishness is unfortunate rewarded in capitalist society, either way you look at it change is needed. Real change. Not Obama-this-will-get-me-elected change..

So far the most effective modern system of government and market structure is A Social Democracy with Free Market. The Banking system should be nationalised and a fund always available for the nationalisation of factories should the collapse, this to save jobs, not the pockets of the rich.

You can't have a free market with state controlled banks. What you're talking about isn't a free market at all. You can't say that you want a free market and then say you're going to have state intervention when the free market fails.

[xsecx]

the human nature argument is moot. Human nature produces nothing definite. Humans can love just as easily as they can hate and they can cooperate just as easily as they can squabble. From my own observations it is the environment that has the true effect on the way humans act, not their species.

sociologists disagree with you. humans are incredibly predictable and we're really not that different than any other pack animal.

are you kidding? Look at what imperialism (or "exploration" as it used to be called) and neo-imperialism (the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) have done to most "developing" countries. This isn't some fucking joke nor is it an abstract idea; people are suffering from these things and in some cases have been for centuries.

hey rodrigo and guys from eastern europe, how are things going for you guys now as compared to say 15 years ago?

[xGriffox]

[QUOTE=xsecx;101479]sociologists disagree with you. humans are incredibly predictable and we're really not that different than any other pack animal. [quote]
wanna back up this claim with anything?

hey rodrigo and guys from eastern europe, how are things going for you guys now as compared to say 15 years ago?

a little bit over 15 years, but there was a brutal dictator running Chile to protect the United States' capitalist interests, in case you forgot.

[xsecx]

wanna back up this claim with anything?

sure, go look up what sociology is, since that's what it's about. Or are you going to argue that sociology doesn't exist?

a little bit over 15 years, but there was a brutal dictator running Chile to protect the United States' capitalist interests, in case you forgot.

and? that really has no baring on your statement that I was refuting. You come off as an arrogant privileged kid trying to tell everyone else how things are, so why not just go directly to the source? Or do you know better than the people actually living there?

[xGriffox]

and? that really has no baring on your statement that I was refuting. You come off as an arrogant privileged kid trying to tell everyone else how things are

Really? Because i wasn't speaking for anyone other than myself. I was merely interjecting with facts that you seem to love to overlook in contexts that you are bringing up.

so why not just go directly to the source? Or do you know better than the people actually living there?

Seems like you missed my point then. The fact that many countries have lived in totalitarian-type circumstance for years of course warrants the fact that things will have improved from there with the abolition of said totalitarian circumstances; doesn't mean that capitalism is benefiting most of the people there (or did at all if it had been instated for years prior like in Chile).

[xGriffox]

sure, go look up what sociology is, since that's what it's about. Or are you going to argue that sociology doesn't exist?

I was just wondering if you had a source to back up the "human nature is bad" statement, ya know like an actual source, not you calling me a stupid kid and telling me to research a huge and broad topic of study as opposed to being able to actually back up your statements. If you find a source i would love to read it.

[xsecx]

Really? Because i wasn't speaking for anyone other than myself. I was merely interjecting with facts that you seem to love to overlook in contexts that you are bringing up.

You were talking about how things are in a place you're not from and I doubt you've ever been. I don't see how that's a fact? I'd like to know how much of the third world you've seen and interacted with first hand? How many factories and villages you've lived and worked in?

Seems like you missed my point then. The fact that many countries have lived in totalitarian-type circumstance for years of course warrants the fact that things will have improved from there with the abolition of said totalitarian circumstances; doesn't mean that capitalism is benefiting most of the people there (or did at all if it had been instated for years prior like in Chile).

your point is baseless then, because during all of it, they were still within the capitalist system. If it's improved, it's also because of capitalism or at least capitalism had as much a hand in the improvement as anything else. For your argument to work it has to be absolute, that capitalism can only make things worse for better, when that simply isn't the case.

[xGriffox]

You were talking about how things are in a place you're not from and I doubt you've ever been. I don't see how that's a fact? I'd like to know how much of the third world you've seen and interacted with first hand? How many factories and villages you've lived and worked in?

You are right, i have essentially never traveled abroad (though i'm sure if i had you would write off my point as moot because i had the privilege to be able to). I have read writings from people who live and work in factories and villages there and i have read about the consistence organization of the state and companies against unionization and social organization/mobilization. I have talked to people in depth who have lived in these places about the social conditions there. You are right, my understanding is not one of someone who actually has lived in whichever places we may be talking about, but in some cases i have had a fair amount of interaction with the voices and ideas of people who do live there.

your point is baseless then, because during all of it, they were still within the capitalist system. If it's improved, it's also because of capitalism or at least capitalism had as much a hand in the improvement as anything else. For your argument to work it has to be absolute, that capitalism can only make things worse for better, when that simply isn't the case.

Not true at all. My argument, which i have been putting forth since the beginning of this topic, is that i believe that anarchism would be a beneficial form of societal organization, that i prefer cooperation over competition, and that such a form of organization is viable.

[xsecx]

You are right, i have essentially never traveled abroad (though i'm sure if i had you would write off my point as moot because i had the privilege to be able to). I have read writings from people who live and work in factories and villages there and i have read about the consistence organization of the state and companies against unionization and social organization/mobilization. I have talked to people in depth who have lived in these places about the social conditions there. You are right, my understanding is not one of someone who actually has lived in whichever places we may be talking about, but in some cases i have had a fair amount of interaction with the voices and ideas of people who do live there.

yeah but then you're only getting one side of the story and it's the one that already fits your world view. Talking like you are knowledgeable of living and conditions to places you've never been to is laughable and pointless.

Not true at all. My argument, which i have been putting forth since the beginning of this topic, is that i believe that anarchism would be a beneficial form of societal organization, that i prefer cooperation over competition, and that such a form of organization is viable.

but they've benefited in a competition model, or are you back to saying that things have never improved anywhere due to capitalism?

[xGriffox]

yeah but then you're only getting one side of the story and it's the one that already fits your world view. Talking like you are knowledgeable of living and conditions to places you've never been to is laughable and pointless.

So have you been living in Latin America and Eastern Europe? Because if not, your support of capitalism there is "laughable and pointless" since you have no idea how things really are!

This debate has become childish. Enjoy being a vanguard to capitalism. I'm done with this.