NationStates Jolt Archive

When capital and the ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, class privilege, the 7 day working week, children in coalmines, the opium wars, the massacre of the Paris Commune, slavery, the Spanish-American War, the Boer War, starvation, apartheid, anti-union laws, the First World War, Flanders, trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing, the Soviet Intervention, the Armenian Genocide, chemical weapons, fascism, the Great Depression, hunger marches, Nazism, the Spanish Civil War, militarism, Asbestosis, radiation death, the Massacre of Nanking, the Second World War, Belsen, Dresden, Hiroshima, Racism, The Mafia, nuclear weapons, the Korean War, DDT, McCarthyism, production lines, blacklists, Thalidomide, the rape of the Third World, poverty, the arms race, plastic surgery, the electric chair, environmental degradation, the Vietnam War, the military suppression of Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Turkey, the Gulf War, trade in human body parts, malnutrition, Exxon Valdez, deforestation, organized crime, the Heroin and Cocaine trade, tuberculosis, the destruction of the Ozone Layer, cancer, exploitation of labour and the deaths of 50,000,000 Communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then — and only then — will I consider apologising for some of the errors of taken in trying to reach socialism.

Who else knew this shit was coming?

Who else knew this shit was coming?

Ooh! I did! *Raises hand* :p

When capital and the ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, class privilege, the 7 day working week, children in coalmines, the opium wars, the massacre of the Paris Commune, slavery, the Spanish-American War, the Boer War, starvation, apartheid, anti-union laws, the First World War, Flanders, trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing, the Soviet Intervention, the Armenian Genocide, chemical weapons, fascism, the Great Depression, hunger marches, Nazism, the Spanish Civil War, militarism, Asbestosis, radiation death, the Massacre of Nanking, the Second World War, Belsen, Dresden, Hiroshima, Racism, The Mafia, nuclear weapons, the Korean War, DDT, McCarthyism, production lines, blacklists, Thalidomide, the rape of the Third World, poverty, the arms race, plastic surgery, the electric chair, environmental degradation, the Vietnam War, the military suppression of Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Turkey, the Gulf War, trade in human body parts, malnutrition, Exxon Valdez, deforestation, organized crime, the Heroin and Cocaine trade, tuberculosis, the destruction of the Ozone Layer, cancer, exploitation of labour and the deaths of 50,000,000 Communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then — and only then — will I consider apologising for some of the errors of taken in trying to reach socialism.

Ahhhhmmmm??????? ooooooookaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy???????

When capital and the ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, class privilege, the 7 day working week, children in coalmines, the opium wars, the massacre of the Paris Commune, slavery, the Spanish-American War, the Boer War, starvation, apartheid, anti-union laws, the First World War, Flanders, trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing, the Soviet Intervention, the Armenian Genocide, chemical weapons, fascism, the Great Depression, hunger marches, Nazism, the Spanish Civil War, militarism, Asbestosis, radiation death, the Massacre of Nanking, the Second World War, Belsen, Dresden, Hiroshima, Racism, The Mafia, nuclear weapons, the Korean War, DDT, McCarthyism, production lines, blacklists, Thalidomide, the rape of the Third World, poverty, the arms race, plastic surgery, the electric chair, environmental degradation, the Vietnam War, the military suppression of Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Turkey, the Gulf War, trade in human body parts, malnutrition, Exxon Valdez, deforestation, organized crime, the Heroin and Cocaine trade, tuberculosis, the destruction of the Ozone Layer, cancer, exploitation of labour and the deaths of 50,000,000 Communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then — and only then — will I consider apologising for some of the errors of taken in trying to reach socialism.

Hear hear.

And what's the kill count?

Memorial for the victims of Capitalism

I'll build one for you - But it'll cost you 8 bucks to to see it, though.

And what's the kill count?

I would imagine beyond measure.

Added to your list: teh Martian invasion of 2046!! lulz simplifying history fer propaganda fer da win!

I'll build one for you - But it'll cost you 8 bucks to to see it, though.

Excellent! :p

I'll build one for you - But it'll cost you 8 bucks to to see it, though.

I can do it for seven bucks a head!

I would imagine beyond measure.

imagination is not a statistic. I'm not convinced.

When capital and the ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, class privilege, the 7 day working week, children in coalmines, the opium wars, the massacre of the Paris Commune, slavery, the Spanish-American War, the Boer War, starvation, apartheid, anti-union laws, the First World War, Flanders, trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing, the Soviet Intervention, the Armenian Genocide, chemical weapons, fascism, the Great Depression, hunger marches, Nazism, the Spanish Civil War, militarism, Asbestosis, radiation death, the Massacre of Nanking, the Second World War, Belsen, Dresden, Hiroshima, Racism, The Mafia, nuclear weapons, the Korean War, DDT, McCarthyism, production lines, blacklists, Thalidomide, the rape of the Third World, poverty, the arms race, plastic surgery, the electric chair, environmental degradation, the Vietnam War, the military suppression of Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Turkey, the Gulf War, trade in human body parts, malnutrition, Exxon Valdez, deforestation, organized crime, the Heroin and Cocaine trade, tuberculosis, the destruction of the Ozone Layer, cancer, exploitation of labour and the deaths of 50,000,000 Communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then — and only then — will I consider apologising for some of the errors of taken in trying to reach socialism.

QFT...If you're going to talk about the victims of one -ism, then you should talk about the victims of every other -ism too...

I'll build one for you - But it'll cost you 8 bucks to to see it, though.

lolz...

imagination is not a statistic. I'm not convinced.

Well then, add up the casualty rates for all of those events I mentioned, then you might have a start for tolling the cost of capitalism.

Well then, add up the casualty rates for all of those events I mentioned, then you might have a start for tolling the cost of capitalism.

no, that will be too much research, less time to post on NSG.

imagination is not a statistic. I'm not convinced.

Man, almost none of the stuff in the OP has anything to do with capitalism - I think he's spoofing the other thread. ;) No one's going to give up their freedom simply because terrible things have been done in the name of freedom anyway - I wouldn't worry. :p

Misrepresenations and wishful thinking.

When capital and the ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, class privilege, the 7 day working week, children in coalmines, the opium wars, the massacre of the Paris Commune, slavery, the Spanish-American War, the Boer War, starvation, apartheid, anti-union laws, the First World War, Flanders, trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing, the Soviet Intervention, the Armenian Genocide, chemical weapons, fascism, the Great Depression, hunger marches, Nazism, the Spanish Civil War, militarism, Asbestosis, radiation death, the Massacre of Nanking, the Second World War, Belsen, Dresden, Hiroshima, Racism, The Mafia, nuclear weapons, the Korean War, DDT, McCarthyism, production lines, blacklists, Thalidomide, the rape of the Third World, poverty, the arms race, plastic surgery, the electric chair, environmental degradation, the Vietnam War, the military suppression of Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Turkey, the Gulf War, trade in human body parts, malnutrition, Exxon Valdez, deforestation, organized crime, the Heroin and Cocaine trade, tuberculosis, the destruction of the Ozone Layer, cancer, exploitation of labour and the deaths of 50,000,000 Communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then — and only then — will I consider apologising for some of the errors of taken in trying to reach socialism.

I would like to know how capitalism is responsible for the bolded.

<snip>
Did capitalism kill my kitty, Mr Fluffy, as well?

Did capitalism kill my kitty, Mr Fluffy, as well?

Yes.

Did capitalism kill my kitty, Mr Fluffy, as well?

It did if you bought Chinese cat-food.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Steam_engine_in_action.gif

"Hi, my name is Capital. John Q. Capital. I'd like to appologise for everything I've done! I'm truly sorry!"

What does Capitalism have to do with racism? Racism is the belief that superiority and inferiority are related to race, not money.

WWI was the result of military build up and alliances. One country got stronger and got an ally. Another country got scared because if there was a war, they'd be fucked, so they got stronger and got and ally. The first country got scared, so it got even stronger and more allies. The second country got scared...etc. Nothing to do with money or wealth. Everything to do with fear and paranoia.

WWII started because Japan wanted all of Eastern and South-Eastern Asia while Hitler was a nutjob with power.

The Japanese atrocities were the result of extreme racism, not Capitalism.

The West hated Communism because the Communist nations, like the USSR and Communist China, became Communist because the Communists there violently overthrew their governments. The Western governments saw the Communists as a very violent threat.

-snip-
I'm not sure you're doing anyone a service by taking this thread too seriously.

I would imagine beyond measure.

In otherwords, you have zero idea, not even one that might indicate it is a higher death rate than normal for any society.

capitalism is to blame for the soviet intervention? :confused:

The UK in Exile;12825139']capitalism is to blame for the soviet intervention? :confused:

Allied intervention in the Soviet Union during the civil war, you know the white army and all.

the white Russian army?

The UK in Exile;12825139']capitalism is to blame for the soviet intervention? :confused:

How about one of the several sins of capitalism that predated capitalism by thousands of years or more.

I would like to know how capitalism is responsible for the bolded.

Colonialism - How is Colonialism and the mercantile system NOT related to Capitalism...Colonising nations generally dominate the resources, labor, and markets of the colonial territory, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism)

slavery - free labour...you don't have to pay your workers and so you gain more profit...Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation in return for their labour. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labour.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) ...(I'm assuming everyone is talking about the trans-Atlantic European-American slave trade)

Spanish-American War - The war was mainly caused by American demands that Spain peacefully resolve the Cuban fight for independence, though arguably this was an excuse for the U.S. to seize Spain's remaining overseas territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. These territories were Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam and the Caroline Islands. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_American_War)...arguably, more colonialism...

the Boer War - fought over gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Background)...at least that's what they told me at school...

First World War - A pissing contest between European powers for domination of Europe and overseas colonies...

poverty - If you don't think that Capitalism doesn't produce any poverty you are being really naive...

the arms race - One could use the military-industrial complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex) to try and argue that point...

environmental degradation - Industrialism...In the quest to increase production of goods we have raped our planet...

I don't really want to try and do the rest.....

Who else knew this shit was coming?

If anything it's late. I expected it within 24 hours of that "victims of communism" thread.

All I'm waiting for now is "Victims of ideology"

or "victims of victimization"

*world's smallest golden violin*

Although the number communism killed is well over 10x that of any Capitalist state, but I have a feeling the Capitalist Memorial will be 10x the size of its counter part. :p

Allied intervention in the Soviet Union during the civil war, you know the white army and all.

Well thank goodness the Red Terror was successful and Lenin prevailed.

Although it strikes me as strange that you sympathize with the Paris Commune when less of them were executed than were the Whites.

I propose a thread for the victims of this and its idiot sister thread. Who else but AP would respond in kind when faced with trollish idiocy? I also love all the individuals pandering to his stupidity. This though is no surprise.

If anything it's late. I expected it within 24 hours of that "victims of communism" thread.

All I'm waiting for now is "Victims of ideology"

Yea just gimmie a minute...:p

Colonialism

The policy of colonialism was generally based on mercantalism, which can be classified as a primitive form of modern capitalism, yet advocates several beliefs which radically vary from today's theories (ie, it vehemently opposes free trade).

the 14 hour day

The blame for that (if it is a bad thing) rests solely on the shoulders of those who willingly accept a contract that mandates they work for 14 hours each day.

class privilege

Being entitled to more if you are a diligent worker instead of a lazy goof is horrible, isn't it? :rolleyes:

the 7 day working week

This really ties in to your previous point about the 14-hour day, and the response is the same.

slavery

That's funny; I thought that racism was the cause of slavery. In fact, pure capitalism would negate slavery, as the use of slave labor became increasingly expensive while crop prices remained steady. In the end, it would be more efficient for slaves not to be employed.

the Spanish-American War

The main reason for that war was pure humanitarianism combined with fervent expansionism; the Spanish sent "Butcher" Weyler to massacre the Cubans and we intervened. That's really unrelated to capitalism.

starvation

Yeah, along with communism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, state capitalism, interventionism, etc.

apartheid

Again, racism is the guilty agent, here. Capitalism generally assumes the free movement of labor and capital, which conflicts with apartheid policies.

anti-union laws

Yes, along with other anti-monopoly laws. It's a good thing, mind you. Of course, trade unions are responsible for murder, blackmail, fraud, and other assorted crime.

Flanders

Capitalism is responsible for a geographic region?

trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing...chemical weapons

No, military strategy is the cause of the tactics you listed. It's not as if the Soviet Union, for example, didn't employ aerial bombing; in fact, economic systems have no bearing whatsoever on what you listed.

fascism

Fascism, an ideology which generally advocates corporatism, is opposed to capitalism as it acknowledges widespread state control of the means of production. They called it National Socialism for a reason, you know. In the words of Churchill, Nazism and Communism are as different as the North Pole and the South Pole.

the Great Depression

I doubt you have a basic grasp of economics, but that was mostly due to state intervention in the private sector as well as FDR's disastrous economic policies which served to lengthen and deepen the US's economic trough.

Asbestosis...radiation death

Capitalism created a disease, now?

the Second World War

That's funny. I thought that a deranged maniac called Hitler, who wished to exterminate the Jewish race and dominate the world was responsible. Incidentally, he was a socialist (as I previously stated, a National Socialist).

Racism

You're really just saying random stuff now, aren't you? Well, I say communism created Barney. I'm not going to even bother going through the rest of this senseless drivel.

However, capitalism provided the computer and internet you are using to launch a diatribe against it.

Colonialism - How is Colonialism and the mercantile system NOT related to Capitalism...Colonising nations generally dominate the resources, labor, and markets of the colonial territory, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism)

And....

slavery - free labour...you don't have to pay your workers and so you gain more profit...Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation in return for their labour. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labour.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) ...(I'm assuming everyone is talking about the trans-Atlantic European-American slave trade)

Again, how is slavery a product of capitalism?

Perhaps you should also answer to why slavery existed for millenia before capitalism, but is now largely nonexistent within capitalistic societies?

Spanish-American War - The war was mainly caused by American demands that Spain peacefully resolve the Cuban fight for independence, though arguably this was an excuse for the U.S. to seize Spain's remaining overseas territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. These territories were Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam and the Caroline Islands. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_American_War)...arguably, more colonialism...

And....

the Boer War - fought over gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Background)...at least that's what they told me at school...

I'm sorry, are all wars fought over resources caused by capitalism?

First World War - A pissing contest between European powers for domination of Europe and overseas colonies...


And....

poverty - If you don't think that Capitalism doesn't produce any poverty you are being really naive...

If you don't think poverty exists without capitalism you are crazy.

the arms race - One could use the military-industrial complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex) to try and argue that point...

What capitalistic countries did the arms race occur between?

environmental degradation - Industrialism...In the quest to increase production of goods we have raped our planet...

I didn't mean to bold that one as I already knew the response.

Well, I say communism created Barney.

I have always suspected this, but was afraid to mention it.

Thank you.

Who will you hire to build your memorial, and will you pay them a working wage with benefits?

Capitalism gave us porn. It has nothing to apologize for.

Colonialism
What's wrong with spreading out? I for one would love to see space colonies.

the 14 hour day
I thought days had 24 hours.

class privilege
Because it didn't exist in the Soviet Union. Nooo.

the 7 day working week
I've had to do that for a while but it didn't kill me.

the opium wars
If you legalize and regulate drugs there will be no drug-related violence.

the massacre of the Paris Commune
Damn commies deserved it.

slavery
Is not capitalist.

the Spanish-American War
I'm pretty sure it was a secret plot by Canadia.:p

the Boer War
Canadia strikes again!:p

starvation
That's the fault of Greenpeace and eco-commie organizations like it that lobby against life-saving agricultural technologies and practices, not capitalism.

apartheid
You seem to be confused. Capitalism is not the same as racism. Capitalism is all about money and who has it and has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

anti-union laws
No union ever did me any favors, especially the one I was in at my first job. No benefits but I still had to pay dues. Does that seem fair?

the First World War
Germany, not capitalism.

Flanders
Homer.

trench warfare
Was a good strategy at the time and not caused by capitalism.

mustard gas
Invented by chemists, not capitalism.

aerial bombing
Would you rather we fight with swords and clubs?

the Soviet Intervention
That was the Soviet's killing innocent Afghans for refusing to submit to the will of the one-party state.

the Armenian Genocide


chemical weapons
Chemists invented them, not capitalism.

fascism
Is nationalism mixed with socialism. It is an authoritarian political ideology that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity. Capitalism is all about the individual. See how they aren't compatible?

the Great Depression
You may have something with this one. It is true that

hunger marches
The hungry could be fed today if it weren't for fuckin' Greenpeace holding up research on genetically modified crops. Did you know that Greenpeace convicned the Zambian government to reject donated corn because Greenpeace said it was poisoned? As a result three-hundred-THOUSAND innocent people starved to death.

Nazism
AKA National Socialism. A kind of fascism. And we know that fascism reject individuality. Much like socialism does.

militarism
Caused by trigger-happy generals, not businessmen.

Asbestosis
Caused by asbestos, not capitalism.

radiation death
Caused by radiation destroying genes, not by capitalism.

the Massacre of Nanking
Committed by the Japanese Imperial Army, not businessmen.

the Second World War
Caused by Nazi Germany, not capitalism. Nazism is racist socialism in denial.

Belsen
National socialism.

Dresden
The Nazis had to be stopped and Dresden was an important garrison.

Hiroshima
It ended the war and wasn't caused by capitalism.

Racism
Capitalism is all about the money and has nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

The Mafia
Created by illegalizing businesses. When you outlaw something it turns into a black market if there is still demand for it.

nuclear weapons
Invented by Oppenheimer and company, not capitalism.

the Korean War
The Soviets had a part in that too.

DDT
Invented by a chemist, not capitalism.

McCarthyism
Caused by a fear of communism, not by capitalism.

production lines
As opposed to making everything by hand? Hooray for cottage industry and starvation!

blacklists
Gulag.

the arms race
The Soviets had something to do with that too.

I'd do the rest but I'm getting bored with it.

Well then, add up the casualty rates for all of those events I mentioned, then you might have a start for tolling the cost of capitalism.

Maybe, since your the one claiming these things, YOU should do your own research.

And as for those being deaths by capitalism, a couple of those aren't really caused by capitalism.


Colonialism: More Christian/European expansionism than capitalism.

Starvation: What on earth? People starved in Soviet Russia too. NEXT!

Apartheid: Racism, not capitalism, caused this.

The Second World War: This has got to be one of your more absurd claims.
The Second World War was caused by Hitler attacking other countries, along with Japan and Italy.

List of World War 2 Attacks on Civilians: No, those were caused by, gasp,

World War 2. Capitalism is NOT at fault for the firebombing of Dresden and the nuking of Hiroshima.

The Mafia: Caused by criminals, not by capitalism. Living in a communist society doesn't magically make crime go away.

Militarism: No, that's caused by warmongers. the Soviet Union was militaristic too.

Poverty: There's poor people in communist nations.

McCarthyism: No, that's caused by paranoia.
Production Lines: Last time I checked, there was nothing wrong with production lines. They helped us win WW2.

The Arms Race: This was caused by having an enemy that wished to keep up with us and us wishing to stay ahead of them.

Plastic Surgery: Okay, there isn't much wrong with plastic surgery. Sure, when it's used by already attractive woman and men it's sort of creepy, but it's also helpful to burn patients and others. Stop creating problems that aren't there.

Chemical Weapons: Militarism, not capitalism, is to blame for this.

Armenian Genocide: I'm afraid I don't know enough about the Armenian Genocide to comment on this. I thought it was due to the Azerbaijaini Muslim's intolerance of Armenians.

"The Rape of the third world": While a nice and dramatic arguing statement, the third world war is kept down as much by internal wars as outside interference.

The Electric Chair: No, this was developed as a way to off people, and doesn't have anymore with capitalism than a firing squad. Well, unless it was invented in a capitalist country, in which case I guess it has slightly more to do with capitalism.

Viet Nam: This was caused by paranoia about Viet Nam falling to the communists, not capitalism.

Malnutrition: See starvation.

Trade in Human Body Parts: See Mafia.

Organized Crime: See Mafia.

Cocaine and Heroin Trade: See Mafia.

Deaths of 50,000,000 communists and trade unionists in this century: Holy shit. That's a sixth the population of the united states. I would LOVE to know where you got that statistic.

Tuberculosis: I'm sorry, what on earth does TB have to do with capitalism? It's a disease, not a business. Well, the health care business, but it didn't create TB or anything. It's been around for ages.

You appeared to have used the "Shotgun method" used by some "psychics" when they do cold readings to just throw out so many guesses that a couple of them have to be right.

Frankly, socialism rarely works in practice. I think the only examples of it ever working is in Scandinavia. And I'm not even sure it works there.

The blame for that (if it is a bad thing) rests solely on the shoulders of those who willingly accept a contract that mandates they work for 14 hours each day.

uhh...riiight...(assuming were talking about 19th Century Industrialism and modern-day sweatshops)blame the guy or the child or the women who has nothing and has no choice but to accept a job that forces them to work ridiculous hours...but don't blame the rich capitalist who could pay more but chooses not to...


This really ties in to your previous point about the 14-hour day, and the response is the same.

same as above

That's funny; I thought that racism was the cause of slavery. In fact, pure capitalism would negate slavery, as the use of slave labor became increasingly expensive while crop prices remained steady. In the end, it would be more efficient for slaves not to be employed.

Slavery wasn't limited to one race...for example...Indentured servants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant)...also...explain the bolded part...how do slaves become increasingly expensive when you don't pay them anything?

The main reason for that war was pure humanitarianism combined with fervent expansionism; the Spanish sent "Butcher" Weyler to massacre the Cubans and we intervened. That's really unrelated to capitalism.

Oh you mean like Iraq :rolleyes:...no nation ever goes to war for "pure humanitarianism"

Yeah, along with communism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, state capitalism, interventionism, etc.

no argument here....

Again, racism is the guilty agent, here. Capitalism generally assumes the free movement of labor and capital, which conflicts with apartheid policies.

again...no argument here....

Capitalism is responsible for a geographic region?



No, military strategy is the cause of the tactics you listed. It's not as if the Soviet Union, for example, didn't employ aerial bombing; in fact, economic systems have no bearing whatsoever on what you listed.

again...no argument here....

...I don't want to go through the res of your list however I will agree that Capitalism did not cause:

Fascism, WW2 and Racism

That's funny; I thought that racism was the cause of slavery. In fact, pure capitalism would negate slavery, as the use of slave labor became increasingly expensive while crop prices remained steady. In the end, it would be more efficient for slaves not to be employed.



Slavery was around long before any kind of racial justifications for it. ;) And, for thousands of years before slaves were taken from Africa, too.

Slavery was around long before any kind of racial justifications for it. ;)

Yeah, it was also around before capitalism. Hell, it was around before capital even existed, let alone capitalism.

how do slaves become increasingly expensive when you don't pay them anything?

Maintaining and purchasing slave labor isn't free.

I wouldn't mind a memorial to people killed by these regimes, but the key difference between communism and capitalism is that the first is an ideology as well as economic system while the second is only an economic system. It was the ideological side of communism that led to those deaths.

I wouldn't mind a memorial to people killed by these regimes, but the key difference between communism and capitalism is that the first is an ideology as well as economic system while the second is only an economic system. It was the ideological side of communism that led to those deaths.

The ideological side of capitalism is conservatism, fascism, pinochet and right-wing dictatorships and juntas.

The ideological side of capitalism is conservatism, fascism, pinochet and right-wing dictatorships and juntas.

Prove it.

Maintaining and purchasing slave labor isn't free.

First you buy the slave, then you feed and house the slave (imagine a pet dog but 4x worse nad hundreds of them), then you put the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.

Once machinery was able to do the work of 20 or so people, slavery wasn't really necessary anymore.

The ideological side of capitalism is conservatism, fascism, pinochet and right-wing dictatorships and juntas.

Not in the slightest.

If colonialism/mercantilism can be described as an early form of capitalism, but does not fit our definition of capitalism. Then surely the primitive forms of socialism(soviet communism) practiced in the 20th century do not describe communism.

If the side effects of soviet communism(early communism) caused the death of 100 million people. Then the side effects of colonialism(early capitalism), that killed an estimated 100 million native inhabitants in the new world must also be counted.

Not in the slightest.

You can't prove otherwise.

You can't prove otherwise.

You can't prove it to begin with. The absence of evidence does not equal evidence.

Again, build a memorial for everyone whos ever died unjustly.
:rolleyes:

Come on, give it a rest. They're dead. Long dead. Forgive and forget.

You can't prove otherwise.

You can't prove otherwise.

I've always thought there was a resemblance between you two.

Further, I'd reference Adam Smith's economic analyses, and the admonition to avoid state intervention in the economy. Something which all of the ideologies you listed wholeheartedly advocate.

I'll build one for you - But it'll cost you 8 bucks to to see it, though.

Family Discounts?

You can't prove it to begin with. The absence of evidence does not equal evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_under_Pinochet#Economy_and_Free_Market_reforms

I could go on and on posting links if you wish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_under_Pinochet#Economy_and_Free_Market_reforms

I could go on and on posting links if you wish.

Hardly. Pinochet never privatised the copper industry, and he strictly regulated the exchange rates. He was nothing more than a common authoritarian who made market concessions to keep certain special interests happy: Specifically the group most politically dangerous to him to begin with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_under_Pinochet#Economy_and_Free_Market_reforms

I could go on and on posting links if you wish.

You should have done so to begin with.

The ideological side of capitalism is conservatism, fascism, pinochet and right-wing dictatorships and juntas.

If I had to characterize either Capitalism or Communism as requiring oppression and authoritarianism to achieve - it would be Communism by miles. :p

Capitalism is the natural state of things, what human beings do if no one has a gun to their heads - the capital is held by the people, who deal as they wish. Not saying regulation is never necessary, but Communism is not something that crops up organically - only mechanically. ;)

Added to your list: teh Martian invasion of 2046!! lulz simplifying history fer propaganda fer da win!

Ain't that the truth!

Andaras Prime, quit trolling. Stop spewing propaganda, too.

Ain't that the truth!

Andaras Prime, quit trolling. Stop spewing propaganda, too.

% of point overlooked: 100
% of sarcasm missed: 100

Ain't that the truth!

Andaras Prime, quit trolling. Stop spewing propaganda, too.

urrg I think I am near ready to abandon this oligarchic rich-boy infested forum, it's truly horrible.

urrg I think I am near ready to abandon this oligarchic rich-boy infested forum, it's truly horrible.

Go ahead. I certainly won't miss you.

urrg I think I am near ready to abandon this oligarchic rich-boy infested forum, it's truly horrible.

No! Please...oh who am I kidding? Do what you want.

uhh...riiight...(assuming were talking about 19th Century Industrialism and modern-day sweatshops)blame the guy or the child or the women who has nothing and has no choice but to accept a job that forces them to work ridiculous hours...but don't blame the rich capitalist who could pay more but chooses not to...

I went to a restaurant today. I could have paid $20 for the meal but I paid $10. I am a bastard.

urrg I think I am near ready to abandon this oligarchic rich-boy infested forum, it's truly horrible.

I have no clue what you're talking about dearie. This forum is rather far to the left. You just go looking for the right...it's like some sort of bizarre fixation, some sort of attachment to argument.

You know I'm thinking, I'm really wondering why Chavez hasn't made a "Victims of Capitalism" memorial.

I mean doesn't he love pissing Bush off? Hmm... Maybe I should Email a suggestion.

Nah, I don't want on the watch list.

I went to a restaurant today. I could have paid $20 for the meal but I paid $10. I am a bastard.

Yeah. Dirty Capitalist.

I went to a restaurant today. I could have paid $20 for the meal but I paid $10. I am a bastard.

Heck, I went to a restaraunt yesterday and all I could afford was some hot tea! All this whilst one of the guys I was there with ordered a full meal, two sides, a milkshake and a dessert from the dessert tray. Golly, that was an adventure.

None of you ever watched "The Fresh Prince of Bel air"?

Hardly. Pinochet never privatised the copper industry, and he strictly regulated the exchange rates. He was nothing more than a common authoritarian who made market concessions to keep certain special interests happy: Specifically the group most politically dangerous to him to begin with.
Wow he kept ONE Industry under government control... Wow that makes him a commie right?
Despite the fact that his entire stance on EVERYTHING was on laissez-faire Capitalism or else?

None of you ever watched "The Fresh Prince of Bel air"?

I yelled to the cabbie: "Yo homes smell ya later!" Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there. Sitting on my throne as the prince of Bel Air.

No, no I haven't.

why can't we have a memorial for the 9 firefighters in charelston that died?

What's there to apologize it is conflict that makes us strong

I yelled to the cabbie: "Yo homes smell ya later!" Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there. Sitting on my throne as the prince of Bel Air.

No, no I haven't.

According to Andaras Prime, everybody on this forum is like Carlton. Or Uncle Phil. And he's like Will. Except an even-less cooler version. And a socialist.

why can't we have a memorial for the 9 firefighters in charelston that died?

Because we still haven't built one for the 300+ that died six years ago.

urrg I think I am near ready to abandon this oligarchic rich-boy infested forum, it's truly horrible.

Tired of always being pwned? Understandable.

Tired of always being pwned? Understandable.

That's pretty funny. Thanks for that refresher.

Because we still haven't built one for the 300+ that died six years ago.

well, i wasn't on NS that long.

i meant a thread to memorial their deaths

According to Andaras Prime, everybody on this forum is like Carlton. Or Uncle Phil. And he's like Will. Except an even-less cooler version. And a socialist.

Wait, who am I?

According to Andaras Prime, everybody on this forum is like Carlton. Or Uncle Phil. And he's like Will. Except an even-less cooler version. And a socialist.

Yes, because I grew up in a trailer park and my parents have worked in a supermarket for twenty years. I must be fucking rolling money to think capitalism is anything but: "EVIL!!".

Yes, because I grew up in a trailer park and my parents have worked in a supermarket for twenty years. I must be fucking rolling money to think capitalism is anything but: "EVIL!!".

Freedom itself is evil to some people - because, of course, too much choice means some people will choose incorrectly. :p

Wow he kept ONE Industry under government control... Wow that makes him a commie right?
Despite the fact that his entire stance on EVERYTHING was on laissez-faire Capitalism or else?

No, I was merely saying that he was far, far, far, from being an ideological capitalist. He was merely an opportunist willing to take whatever steps were most expedient to keep himself in power. If appeasing the wealthy and foreign investors by liberalizing markets, so be it. He was nothing more than your garden variety, authoritarian caudillo. There is far more to the world than merely "capitalist" and "communist", even if AP tries to paint the world like that's the case. There's whole shades of grey, as well as ideologies and belief sets that have nothing to do with either of them.

More than that, copper mining was and is the single most dominant industry of the Chilean economy.

Wait, who am I?

I'm not too sure. But, according to AP, everybody is a Carlton. Everybody.

I'm not too sure. But, according to AP, everybody is a Carlton. Everybody.

you know, i also believe in socialism.


but the difference is that i'm not an asshole

you know, i also believe in socialism.


but the difference is that i'm not an asshole

You're Ashlee then. Heavily influenced, but you got your own deal.

I am glad nobody has mentioned a rebuttal for the claim that cancer is caused by capitalism. And you are absolutely right. Cancer cells are merely seeking more property development in the body. The essence of capitalism. Wasn't it John Locke who said "the three inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the ownership of property?" (not a direct quote)

Cancer cells are the biological evolution of capitalism. It's been proven scientifically. If only all the cells in the body were equal, with equal mitochondria and nucleai. This socialist approach to living would have clearly suited the human body, and besides, we'd all look the same if everyone shared their DNA. However, it today's capitalist society, each cell strives to earn more energy than the next. The result is a limited lifespan for each human, which is not helped by the capitalist environment we live in. Cancer cells achieve capitalist victory by gaining more biological property than other cells. Ultimately, however, they fall victim to their own capitalist urges, killing the human they attempt hostile takeovers in.

I hope this is ample warning for all budding capitalists out there. Earn money and get cancer. It's that simple.

-This post brought to you by the letter "C", the number "42" and the word "satire".

-Allaina.

You're Ashlee then. Heavily influenced, but you got your own deal.

i'm the chick

lol

i meant that to insult him

When capital and the ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, class privilege, the 7 day working week, children in coalmines, the opium wars, the massacre of the Paris Commune, slavery, the Spanish-American War, the Boer War, starvation, apartheid, anti-union laws, the First World War, Flanders, trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing, the Soviet Intervention, the Armenian Genocide, chemical weapons, fascism, the Great Depression, hunger marches, Nazism, the Spanish Civil War, militarism, Asbestosis, radiation death, the Massacre of Nanking, the Second World War, Belsen, Dresden, Hiroshima, Racism, The Mafia, nuclear weapons, the Korean War, DDT, McCarthyism, production lines, blacklists, Thalidomide, the rape of the Third World, poverty, the arms race, plastic surgery, the electric chair, environmental degradation, the Vietnam War, the military suppression of Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Turkey, the Gulf War, trade in human body parts, malnutrition, Exxon Valdez, deforestation, organized crime, the Heroin and Cocaine trade, tuberculosis, the destruction of the Ozone Layer, cancer, exploitation of labour and the deaths of 50,000,000 Communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then — and only then — will I consider apologising for some of the errors of taken in trying to reach socialism.

http://www.engadgethd.com/media/2006/06/homer---angry.jpg

Buy the Mises T-Shirt!!!!!! (http://www.mises.org/store/Mises-T-Shirt-Red-P203C0.aspx)

It's way better than the Che T-shirt! Unlike Che, Mises never lined an arbitrary group of people up against the wall and shot them in the back of the head!

http://www.engadgethd.com/media/2006/06/homer---angry.jpg

LOL

that's nice


so is homer a communist then?

LOL

that's nice


so is homer a communist then?

He's actually a donutist and a beerist :)

He's actually a donutist and a beerist :)

no, a Duffist

no, a Duffist

Oh dear, I really am off my game tonight...I'd best go to bed sometime soon before I make a greater fool of myself :)

LOL

that's nice


so is homer a communist then?

http://xa9.xanga.com/d5f85a1a512328084057/z6386488.jpg

Pictures say a thousand words...


Had to throw this one in too just for fun...

http://x80.xanga.com/f7685ae3737328084792/z6386940.jpg

http://xa9.xanga.com/d5f85a1a512328084057/z6386488.jpg

Pictures say a thousand words...


Had to throw this one in too just for fun...

http://x80.xanga.com/f7685ae3737328084792/z6386940.jpg

lol

i like #2

Anyone else wondering how many people were killed in the name of communism? Around 100 million in the 20th century alone.

Anyone else wondering how many people were killed in the name of communism? Around 100 million in the 20th century alone.

According to some here on NS it was "fake" communist countries that killed all those people. Real communist countries if they were to ever exist are Utopian.

According to some here on NS it was "fake" communist countries that killed all those people. Real communist countries if they were to ever exist are Utopian.

"Communism", defined traditionally, IS a Utopia. An anarchic collective of Men, all of whom are equals in a land with enough wealth so that no man can go hungry.

Communism in its traditional sense was more than just the economics. It was the paradise advocated by those such as Buddha, Jesus, the Dalai Lama, etc. And the USSR... just wasn't it. It was traditional socialism gone awry with authoritarianism.

When capital and the ruling classes apologise for: Colonialism, the 14 hour day, class privilege, the 7 day working week, children in coalmines, the opium wars, the massacre of the Paris Commune, slavery, the Spanish-American War, the Boer War, starvation, apartheid, anti-union laws, the First World War, Flanders, trench warfare, mustard gas, aerial bombing, the Soviet Intervention, the Armenian Genocide, chemical weapons, fascism, the Great Depression, hunger marches, Nazism, the Spanish Civil War, militarism, Asbestosis, radiation death, the Massacre of Nanking, the Second World War, Belsen, Dresden, Hiroshima, Racism, The Mafia, nuclear weapons, the Korean War, DDT, McCarthyism, production lines, blacklists, Thalidomide, the rape of the Third World, poverty, the arms race, plastic surgery, the electric chair, environmental degradation, the Vietnam War, the military suppression of Greece, India, Malaya, Indonesia, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Turkey, the Gulf War, trade in human body parts, malnutrition, Exxon Valdez, deforestation, organized crime, the Heroin and Cocaine trade, tuberculosis, the destruction of the Ozone Layer, cancer, exploitation of labour and the deaths of 50,000,000 Communists and trade unionists in this century alone, then — and only then — will I consider apologising for some of the errors of taken in trying to reach socialism.
Pol pot pol pot!pol pot!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYv3kwQW6lI :upyours:

"Communism", defined traditionally, IS a Utopia. An anarchic collective of Men, all of whom are equals in a land with enough wealth so that no man can go hungry.

Communism in its traditional sense was more than just the economics. It was the paradise advocated by those such as Buddha, Jesus, the Dalai Lama, etc. And the USSR... just wasn't it. It was traditional socialism gone awry with authoritarianism.
First off, the Dalai Lama is and always has been a psychotic dictator. Before the Chinese drove out the priest ruling class Tibet was run by the Dalai Lama and his closest priest buddies with tons of servants, wealth, and power. everyone else was a serf living in squalor drinking yak butter tea and eating anything they could find. The current Dalai Lama just wants his slaves back and to restore the exiled to power. Of course China hasn't been too great itself; while it did introduce running water, electricity, and secular education it has also stomped on all forms of free expression, set up more labor camps than there are bones in the human body, and then there's that whole fucked up communism thing. The lessons to be learned here? The lesser of two evils is still evil and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

Second off, there is no such thing as a utopia. If everyone is equal in land and wealth then there is no economic freedom. Most communist nations and socialist nations in general try to keep differing opinions to a minimum so no one gets any ideas about trying to be better than anyone else. And there is very little difference among parties...assuming there is more than one.

Every silver lining has its dark cloud. Every rose has its thorns. Everything has a price. The price for freedom is inequality and insecurity and vice versa.

urrg I think I am near ready to abandon this oligarchic rich-boy infested forum, it's truly horrible.

I've noticed you have a tendency to avoid discussing the topic of a thread, and prefer to mock or attack posters who disagree with you.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

When capital and the ruling classes apologise for...plastic surgery...
Wha? I guess it's kind of a vain thing to do, but does it really belong on a list with all those atrocities?
I mean, I'd hope that there would still be plastic surgery in a classless society. Equality doesn't magically spawn gravity defying 38 DD's my friend.

The First World War? Nazism? Cancer? Your links being drawn between the majority of those events and capitalism are perhaps a little tenuous.

How the hell does capitalism cause cancer? Are you being sarcastic?

production lines

OH NOES, capitalism caused the assembly line, which has...

... wait a minute, what?

Plastic Surgery: Okay, there isn't much wrong with plastic surgery. Sure, when it's used by already attractive woman and men it's sort of creepy, but it's also helpful to burn patients and others. Stop creating problems that aren't there.
Wow. I really laughed out loud when I read this. I can't believe he included plastic surgery in his list. Yes, the beautification of the world is the nexus of all evil, and thus must stem from capitalism.

urrg I think I am near ready to abandon this oligarchic rich-boy infested forum, it's truly horrible.
Bye. Don't forget to close the door behind you, and do me a favour and get me a coke before you leave. Don't forget to write.

The ideological side of capitalism is
Libertarianism/classical liberalism. Thanks for lying though.

Wha? I guess it's kind of a vain thing to do, but does it really belong on a list with all those atrocities?
I mean, I'd hope that there would still be plastic surgery in a classless society. Equality doesn't magically spawn gravity defying 38 DD's my friend.
I really do not see what the problem with it is. As far as I am concerned it is a boon.

I am glad nobody has mentioned a rebuttal for the claim that cancer is caused by capitalism. And you are absolutely right. Cancer cells are merely seeking more property development in the body. The essence of capitalism. Wasn't it John Locke who said "the three inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the ownership of property?" (not a direct quote)

Cancer cells are the biological evolution of capitalism. It's been proven scientifically. If only all the cells in the body were equal, with equal mitochondria and nucleai. This socialist approach to living would have clearly suited the human body, and besides, we'd all look the same if everyone shared their DNA. However, it today's capitalist society, each cell strives to earn more energy than the next. The result is a limited lifespan for each human, which is not helped by the capitalist environment we live in. Cancer cells achieve capitalist victory by gaining more biological property than other cells. Ultimately, however, they fall victim to their own capitalist urges, killing the human they attempt hostile takeovers in.

I hope this is ample warning for all budding capitalists out there. Earn money and get cancer. It's that simple.

-This post brought to you by the letter "C", the number "42" and the word "satire".

-Allaina.

Heh, I missed this. I approve of this post. :D

I really do not see what the problem with it is. As far as I am concerned it is a boon.
This guy, the OP, seems to be more angry at the world than genuinely interested in productive societal change, which seems about right, seeing as how that's descriptive of all but a few of the communists I've encountered.

It just seems from my angle, that it's the tearing down that excites these people, not the whole Brotherhood of Man thing.

Wha? I guess it's kind of a vain thing to do, but does it really belong on a list with all those atrocities?
I mean, I'd hope that there would still be plastic surgery in a classless society. Equality doesn't magically spawn gravity defying 38 DD's my friend.

And apparently capitalists need to apologize for repairing the disfigurements of burn victims and car crashes.

And apparently capitalists need to apologize for repairing the disfigurements of burn victims and car crashes.
That too, but in all likelihood he was probably just referring to elective surgery or some such.

The ideological side of capitalism is conservatism, fascism, pinochet and right-wing dictatorships and juntas.

Conservatives by their very nature as conservatives desire to maintain the status quo: capitalism.

Fascism was a social and political scheme, but most fascist governments supported nationalization of many industries, Pinochet and the other "right-wing dictatorships" used capitalism for expediency, it made their countries quite wealthy (and eventually ended their reigns).

Conservatives by their very nature as conservatives desire to maintain the status quo: capitalism.
Indeed. If socialism were the status quo, that is what they'd be defending.

This guy, the OP, seems to be more angry at the world than genuinely interested in productive societal change, which seems about right, seeing as how that's descriptive of all but a few of the communists I've encountered.

It just seems from my angle, that it's the tearing down that excites these people, not the whole Brotherhood of Man thing.
I definitely agree in AP's case.

That too, but in all likelihood he was probably just referring to elective surgery or some such.

Well it still shows that he completely lacks objectivity here. The arms race was not about capitalist and communist countries squaring off, but about capitalist aggression. Allied intervention into the civil war was wrong even though the Soviet government executed 100,000 White Army supporters in three years (and of course that government went on to be the cause of tens of millions more). Plastic surgery should be apologized for despite it being legitimate medicine that would not be around if not for capitalism. Capitalism should apologize for colonialism, even though the Soviet Union and China have been very imperialistic.

Well it still shows that he completely lacks objectivity here. The arms race was not about capitalist and communist countries squaring off, but about capitalist aggression. Allied intervention into the civil war was wrong even though the Soviet government executed 100,000 White Army supporters in three years (and of course that government went on to be the cause of tens of millions more). Plastic surgery should be apologized for despite it being legitimate medicine that would not be around if not for capitalism. Capitalism should apologize for colonialism, even though the Soviet Union and China have been very imperialistic.

No, the Soviet Union and China are not true communist states. You can't blame their atrocities on communism.

Oh, what's that you say? The right-wing juntas? All those damn capitalists, I tell you. A great example of capitalist nations and their oppressive nature.

:rolleyes:

On the other hand, IIRC Andaras Prime doesn't seem to believe in the existence of Soviet crimes.

No, the Soviet Union and China are not true communist states. You can't blame their atrocities on communism.
Where did he do so?

Where did he do so?

Sarcasm. I was attempting to formulate a likely AP reply.

Sarcasm. I was attempting to formulate a likely AP reply.
Right, a re-read made that evident. :p Not flamebaitish enough though. AP reminds me a little of our recent troll, SocialistRevolutions. :)

Colonialism - How is Colonialism and the mercantile system NOT related to Capitalism...Colonising nations generally dominate the resources, labor, and markets of the colonial territory, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism)

Mercantilism is not capitalism, and the desire for more power is not capitalism.

slavery - free labour...you don't have to pay your workers and so you gain more profit...

Nonsense. You have to support their entire life, which is even more expensive. Slavery was about control, not "capitalism."


Spanish-American War - The war was mainly caused by American demands that Spain peacefully resolve the Cuban fight for independence, though arguably this was an excuse for the U.S. to seize Spain's remaining overseas territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. These territories were Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam and the Caroline Islands. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_American_War)...arguably, more colonialism...

Yep, colonialism. Not capitalism. Next.

the Boer War - fought over gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Background)...at least that's what they told me at school...

Gold is not capitalism.

First World War - A pissing contest between European powers for domination of Europe and overseas colonies...

Pissing contest is not capitalism.

poverty - If you don't think that Capitalism doesn't produce any poverty you are being really naive...

Ad hominem? If you think there's any system that doesn't "produce any poverty," and thus that capitalism is to blame for any "victims" of poverty, you are even more naive.

the arms race - One could use the military-industrial complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex) to try and argue that point...

Yeah, warring statist factions aligned along political ideologies. That sure is capitalism right there. Go back to the back of the class.

environmental degradation - Industrialism...In the quest to increase production of goods we have raped our planet...

Environmental degradation has been a key component of all human civilization ever since the whole thing began. But yeah, blame capitalism, it seems that reason isn't needed when looking for someone to blame.

I don't really want to try and do the rest.....

Understandably. It's a fool's errand. Blaming "ism"s for specific events and actions of individuals is a typically foolish thing to do to begin with. It assumes that people have no responsibility, so they cannot be blamed, only "isms" do. Oh it wasn't me officer, it was an ism!

Nonsense. You have to support their entire life, which is even more expensive. Slavery was about control, not "capitalism."
That's absurd. Slavery's continuation was about capitalism, you can control and oppress people without enslaving them, see post-slavery. Slaves were cheaper than hiring workers and better than indentured servants because they got to go home eventually.

That's absurd. Slavery's continuation was about capitalism, you can control and oppress people without enslaving them,

Heh, and you can have cheap labor without slavery.

But

Slaves were cheaper than hiring workers and better than indentured servants because they got to go home eventually.

This just isn't the case. You have to buy the slave. You have to get the food. You think supporting humans is cheap?

Especially since paid workers didn't even get minimum wage back then?

The whole point was "look at me, I'm wealthy and powerful, I have a lot of slaves." Not "hey, this makes a whole lot of economic sense and is helping me reinvest my revenue into my capital." That's why it was so prevalent in the southern US, where they don't know shit about business.

Heh, and you can have cheap labor without slavery.
You can't have free labor without slavery.

This just isn't the case. You have to buy the slave. You have to get the food. You think supporting humans is cheap?
If you grow your own food and pay a pittance, yeah it is.

The whole point was "look at me, I'm wealthy and powerful, I have a lot of slaves." Not "hey, this makes a whole lot of economic sense and is helping me reinvest my revenue into my capital." That's why it was so prevalent in the southern US, where they don't know shit about business.
Couldn't possibly be other reasons. You ever been in the south? You want to work outside on the farm during growing season? Hell no.

You can't have free labor without slavery.


If you grow your own food and pay a pittance, yeah it is.


Couldn't possibly be other reasons. You ever been in the south? You want to work outside on the farm during growing season? Hell no.

Better a farm than a coal mine.

then — and only then — will I consider apologising for some of the errors of taken in trying to reach socialism.
You don't have to apologize for anything; I doubt you were in charge of any purges. Likewise, it makes little sense for capitalists to apologize for these things (unless they were involved).

First I would like to thank everyone who has posted in this thread. It is one of the most entertaining things I have seen in a while.

Now as for slavery. It was wrong. Under capitalism it would have eventually died without any govt. involvement. If you don't believe me then look at American History. The Industrial North wanted to end slavery because it became useless as technology improved and machines could do the work of many men in half the time.

If that is not enough for you then try this one. One tractor can do the work of dozens of slaves in much less time. This means the slaves become an expense as opposed to a profit. Because a tractor is much cheaper to support than even one human let alone dozens.

The 14 hr work day. Yeah that was part of capitalism, but capitalism also fixed the problem. You see when the workers got upset about the working conditions they went on strike and refused to return to work until conditions improved. Now I would like to see someone under facism refuse to work for some reason I wanna say they would probably be shot.

The 14 hr work day. Yeah that was part of capitalism, but capitalism also fixed the problem. You see when the workers got upset about the working conditions they went on strike and refused to return to work until conditions improved. Now I would like to see someone under facism refuse to work for some reason I wanna say they would probably be shot.

1) Fascism =/= the opposite of capitalism
2) Unions are not a part of pure capitalism

2) Unions are not a part of pure capitalismErm. Unions are the direct product of free market excesses - they other side of the scale, balancing the whole. They are the direct (And unavoidable) result of the initial 'Rabid' capitalism. They wouldn't be there without capitalism, and capitalism without unions is unthinkable - it can start out without them, but assorted imbalances will inevitably result in their creation. Indeed, it is their presence that eventually stabilises the capitalist system and prevents the collapse Marx & Engels believed to be inevitable. And by doing so, they become one of the pillars upon which capitalism is founded.

Likewise, unions do inevitably have to obey the market (They are a part of it). Excesses on the side of the employers result in their strength, their numbers, their economic power increasing. Excesses on their own side (Which have been the rule in the recent past) result in a loss of members, and a subsequent loss of economic influence and therefore power (Quite similar to the up and down of the economy, in fact - it'll never find a perfect balance, always shift about as circumstances change, and a perfect and eternal solution is nothing less than impossible).

They couldn't be any less part of capitalism.

Indeed, it is their presence that eventually stabilises the capitalist system and prevents the collapse Marx & Engels believed to be inevitable. And by doing so, they become one of the pillars upon which capitalism is founded.

So a founding part of capitalism was formed after capitalism was already up and running. Explains some things...

The 14 hr work day. Yeah that was part of capitalism, but capitalism also fixed the problem. You see when the workers got upset about the working conditions they went on strike and refused to return to work until conditions improved. Now I would like to see someone under facism refuse to work for some reason I wanna say they would probably be shot.
Then they were fired until the government set in places laws that allowed striking and the formation of unions and enforced labor laws that restricted length of the work day and age limits for work.

Then they were fired until the government set in places laws that allowed striking and the formation of unions and enforced labor laws that restricted length of the work day and age limits for work.

Of course it was these Labor unions who persuaded the govt. to pass laws such as shorter work days and restrictions on child labor.

Heres a brief history for you.

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Eco_Unionization.htm

That's absurd. Slavery's continuation was about capitalism, you can control and oppress people without enslaving them, see post-slavery. Slaves were cheaper than hiring workers and better than indentured servants because they got to go home eventually.

Capitalism =/= finding the cheapest solution.

Capitalism =/= finding the cheapest solution.

Aye, finding the most efficient solution is what capitalism is all about.

1) Fascism =/= the opposite of capitalism
2) Unions are not a part of pure capitalism

You are partially wrong on the first count, and entirely wrong on the second count.

Fascism is not the opposite of capitalism, but it is solidly opposed to free markets and the free flow of goods and services.

Unions, on the other hand, are little more than a special form of corporation, one which provides labor to producers. Like all other types of consumable delivery, unions bargain a price for the service they are selling, and try to get the best price possible out of the consumer. They become all the more potent in more specialized fields, because of the limitations on the availability of labor.

Trying to cloak a union in ideology is merely baloney. It's like if you were to try to associate...Initech with an ideology. It just doesn't work.

Capitalism =/= finding the cheapest solution.
Not quite. Try "Not Safe at Any Speed."
Capitalism is about profit which usually does mean capitalism == finding cheapest solution.

Not quite. Try "Not Safe at Any Speed."
Capitalism is about profit which usually does mean capitalism == finding cheapest solution.

But that's a huge over simplification. Capitalism is purely ecenomical, and has nothing to do with human rights, the allegedly capitalist governments that comitted these atrocities were comitted because of faults in their social policy. You can't blame the country's eceonomic policy.

When capital and the ruling classes apologise for: . . . the 14 hour day, .

Wow, did capitalists just cut out ten of them without me knowing?????

I KNEW THAT THE DAYS WERE SHORTER!!!!!!!!


(I'll try to parody as much as i can)

Capitalism is all about making money.

Believe it or not making money is not evil. Earning huge profits is not evil. Living in luxury is not evil.

Capitalism makes money by; producing the best product as cheaply as possible.

Producing the best product means you have to have the best people working for you. To get the best workers means you have to supply the best wages or chances are they are going to be working for somebody else and you will not be able to produce the best product. To produce said product cheaply means coming up with innovative ways that cut time and waste. The assembly line is a perfect example.

Capitalism also encourages technological advancement. It does this by insuring that any money made from the technology finds its way into the discoverer's pocket.

Capitalism does not have social stances. It is not responsible for what govt. do. Capitalism is purely an economic philosophy and should be treated as such; blaming it for all the evils of the world does not make it guilty of those evils nor will it change the past.

Capitalism is all about making money.

Believe it or not making money is not evil. Earning huge profits is not evil. Living in luxury is not evil.

Capitalism makes money by; producing the best product as cheaply as possible.

Producing the best product means you have to have the best people working for you. To get the best workers means you have to supply the best wages or chances are they are going to be working for somebody else and you will not be able to produce the best product. To produce said product cheaply means coming up with innovative ways that cut time and waste. The assembly line is a perfect example.

Capitalism also encourages technological advancement. It does this by insuring that any money made from the technology finds its way into the discoverer's pocket.

Capitalism does not have social stances. It is not responsible for what govt. do. Capitalism is purely an economic philosophy and should be treated as such; blaming it for all the evils of the world does not make it guilty of those evils nor will it change the past.

amen

So a founding part of capitalism was formed after capitalism was already up and running. Explains some things...
It is a sine qua non of free market ideology that workers be able to free associate with one another in the form of unions. Governments crushing unions, as well as unions backed with governmental privileges, are both foreign entities to a free market.

That's absurd. Slavery's continuation was about capitalism, you can control and oppress people without enslaving them, see post-slavery. Slaves were cheaper than hiring workers and better than indentured servants because they got to go home eventually.
Rubbish. Slavery was indeed less efficient than hired labour.

Not quite. Try "Not Safe at Any Speed."
Capitalism is about profit which usually does mean capitalism == finding cheapest solution.
Again, rubbish. It is about finding the solution which best maximizes profits in the long-run. "Cheapest" is rarely a guarantee of future profits. The efficiency wage hypothesis is one example of this.

Well, this is a clusterf*ck of a thread.

Well, I must admit that Andaras Prime is an overzealous Marxist at best, and a down right Stalinist on his bad days. Quite a few on his list can't really attributed to capitalism, regardless of how it is defined.

But, really, the whole disconnect in this debate is a difference in the definition of capitalism that opposing sides are using. Andaras Prime and other leftists define capitalism by its classic liberal definition: the private ownership and control of productive property. The modern right-wing libertarians, eager to avoid direct confrontation with the left, define capitalism in the neo-liberal manner. They focus on "free markets", "free trade", non-aggression and individualism in their definition of capitalism.

This is not only a narrow way of defining capitalism, but it is a brilliant way to avoid the root of the issue, which is what leftists always bring up: private control of productive property. While private property is implied by the neo-liberal definition of capitalism, this part is deliberately avoided by most free market types in their polemics on the merits of "capitalism." Such arrangements are held by default to be the ideal, and everyone is supposed to accept this without proof, or go hang in Commie hell.

So, let's cut down to the core of the capitalist system: the private ownership of productive property. This, more than anything else, is the core of the capitalist system. It is this private control of productive property that created many of the most horrible abuses of the post-industrial revolution world. As centers of private power expanded, a mass of unemployed, downtrodden vagabonds in Europe, the focus of production shifted from independent artisans working with a few apprentices to the massive factory system, with thousands of people employed at minimal wages by a very small number of property owners. The factory employee has no inherent rights, his only right is the right to quit. He must do as his master tells him in the factory, or he can find work elsewhere. He could always be replaced by any one of the innumerable unskilled laborers begging for work. In 19th century Europe, employment was very much a Hobson's choice. Though the conditions have improved, it cannot be denied that employer has a certain measure of coercive power over his employees.

This industrial growth lead to an inexorable search for new markets and new raw materials. Hence, we enter into colonialism, and all of the evils it has brought on the world, from the millions of third world peasants killed by colonial oppression to the ultimate rise of nationalism and the ignition of the First World War.

So, let's cut down to the core of the capitalist system: the private ownership of productive property. This, more than anything else, is the core of the capitalist system. It is this private control of productive property that created many of the most horrible abuses of the post-industrial revolution world. As centers of private power expanded, a mass of unemployed, downtrodden vagabonds in Europe, the focus of production shifted from independent artisans working with a few apprentices to the massive factory system, with thousands of people employed at minimal wages by a very small number of property owners. The factory employee has no inherent rights, his only right is the right to quit. He must do as his master tells him in the factory, or he can find work elsewhere. He could always be replaced by any one of the innumerable unskilled laborers begging for work. In 19th century Europe, employment was very much a Hobson's choice. Though the conditions have improved, it cannot be denied that employer has a certain measure of coercive power over his employees.

And we assume that this is a problem of capitalism because....

This industrial growth lead to an inexorable search for new markets and new raw materials. Hence, we enter into colonialism, and all of the evils it has brought on the world, from the millions of third world peasants killed by colonial oppression to the ultimate rise of nationalism and the ignition of the First World War.

Alright, nationalism and serach for greater resources is not prevalent amongst those society with nationalized industry?

And we assume that this is a problem of capitalism because....

Alright, nationalism and serach for greater resources is not prevalent amongst those society with nationalized industry?

You more than anyone should know my opinion on state ownership by now. To me, it is merely state capitalism, replacing the property owner with the conceited intellectuals of the state bureaucracy.

Historically, the greatest force behind colonialism has been private capitalism, particularly since the Marxist-Leninist nations that rose up were primarily a reaction to colonialism (like China, Vietnam etc.). The Soviet Union may not have been a reaction to colonialism, but the CPSU's urge to dominate led it into the very sorts of actions that even a true follower of Marxist-Leninist dogma would have despised.

It is a sine qua non of free market ideology that workers be able to free associate with one another in the form of unions. Governments crushing unions, as well as unions backed with governmental privileges, are both foreign entities to a free market.

Unions are not always a part of capitalism and certainly did not exist in the earlier incarnations.

Unions are not always a part of capitalism and certainly did not exist in the earlier incarnations.
Either because workers had no desire to unionize or because they were rendered illegal. There is no free market objection to unions though. Now do you actually have a point?

the focus of production shifted from independent artisans working with a few apprentices to the massive factory system
Nope. It shifted from agriculture to industry.

You more than anyone should know my opinion on state ownership by now. To me, it is merely state capitalism, replacing the property owner with the conceited intellectuals of the state bureaucracy.

Historically, the greatest force behind colonialism has been private capitalism, particularly since the Marxist-Leninist nations that rose up were primarily a reaction to colonialism (like China, Vietnam etc.). The Soviet Union may not have been a reaction to colonialism, but the CPSU's urge to dominate led it into the very sorts of actions that even a true follower of Marxist-Leninist dogma would have despised.

A country with big industry needs resources. How do you stop the search for new resources?

I'll bite (back to the first post).

We can also thank capitalism for products that help make our lives more enjoyable/easier...

Investment opportunities...

Jobs... (unless everyone wants to be a farmer)

Advancements too numerous to mention... funded by capitalists' largesse (charitable giving, investing in new companies, etc.).

Free enterprise has led to the car, the computer, running water, usable electricity, so many more things that make the difference between what we have today and what we had two hundred years ago (or ever just a hundred years ago).

etc.

Capitalism is not perfect. But it beats the hell out of socialism, IMO. Those who are capitalist pricks would be pricks under a socialist system too.

Free markets/globalization... now that is a tough argument, pro and con.

Nope. It shifted from agriculture to industry.

Not at all what he's saying. He's only talking about industry.

Either because workers had no desire to unionize or because they were rendered illegal. There is no free market objection to unions though. Now do you actually have a point?

While that is technically true, it is entirely conceivable that in a "free market" society, it would be effectively impossible for workers to unionize, even without state intervention. Since free market theory correctly sees workers in opposition with management over the terms of employment, it is entirely possible for business to to exist in objective conditions that make unionization impossible (high unemployment, high industry concentration, etc.).

Nope. It shifted from agriculture to industry.

I was dealing with industry, not with food cultivation.

A country with big industry needs resources. How do you stop the search for new resources?

Forcibly conquering another country to enter its inhabitants into economic serfdom as cheap labor for raw materials and a resticted foreign market is a clearly illegitimate way to search for new resources.

Forcibly conquering another country to enter its inhabitants into economic serfdom as cheap labor for raw materials and a resticted foreign market is a clearly illegitimate way to search for new resources.

But just because your country is capitalist, doesn't mean that this is the only way to get resources. Remember Capitalism is all about trade. So I don't see why colonialism is inherent or unavoidable with capitalism.

I was dealing with industry, not with food cultivation.
What makes food production not an industry? A product is being produced isn't it? It takes labor to produce that product, doesn't it?

it is entirely possible for business to to exist in objective conditions that make unionization impossible (high unemployment, high industry concentration, etc.).
How?

You more than anyone should know my opinion on state ownership by now. To me, it is merely state capitalism, replacing the property owner with the conceited intellectuals of the state bureaucracy.

Nationalization is not "state capitalism". The political rigging of competitive advantages through the "moral" workings of the state is state capitalism.

It shows the idiotic tendency of some leftists to take the characteristics of capitalism and assume that all systems that bear those characteristics are capitalistic. Then in an even greater fit of intellectual dishonesty, they use that illogical leap to assume that capitalism in turn bears all of the characteristics of these other systems.

Historically, the greatest force behind colonialism has been private capitalism, particularly since the Marxist-Leninist nations that rose up were primarily a reaction to colonialism (like China, Vietnam etc.). The Soviet Union may not have been a reaction to colonialism, but the CPSU's urge to dominate led it into the very sorts of actions that even a true follower of Marxist-Leninist dogma would have despised.

In almost all nations with both a mostly nationalized industry and the ability to extract resources from other nations, they have done so.

Perhaps we should conclude it is the state and not the economic organization of the society. Perhaps we should estimate which economic system promotes greater state power in determining which might be more conducive to colonialism and other state misdeeds.

And you don't think that both Marx and Lenin supported violence and domination as methods to secure their desires?

Nationalization is not "state capitalism". The political rigging of competitive advantages through the "moral" workings of the state is state capitalism.

It shows the idiotic tendency of some leftists to take the characteristics of capitalism and assume that all systems that bear those characteristics are capitalistic. Then in an even greater fit of intellectual dishonesty, they use that illogical leap to assume that capitalism in turn bears all of the characteristics of these other systems.
It really annoys them when critics of communism cite the USSR and other "communist" countries as exemplars of the system - then they're overly willing to use strict, narrow definitions. Two can play at that game though.

While that is technically true, it is entirely conceivable that in a "free market" society, it would be effectively impossible for workers to unionize, even without state intervention. Since free market theory correctly sees workers in opposition with management over the terms of employment, it is entirely possible for business to to exist in objective conditions that make unionization impossible (high unemployment, high industry concentration, etc.).

No, not really.

It really annoys them when critics of communism cite the USSR and other "communist" countries as exemplars of the system - then they're overly willing to use strict, narrow definitions. Two can play at that game though.

What really annoys me is when the government practices "state communism" and hands out subsidies and monopolies to businesses, wastes billions on unnecessary government mail providers, and institutes the draft.

But just because your country is capitalist, doesn't mean that this is the only way to get resources. Remember Capitalism is all about trade. So I don't see why colonialism is inherent or unavoidable with capitalism.

It may not be inherent. But, in a period of time when there was no political democracy, it was very easy for business to enforce its will in government. If that meant conquering other countries (which is always profitable for victor), it happened. Elites didn't have to care about the well-being of anyone (they still don't), they only cared about maximum return. Mass theft and conquest has very high marginal returns.

What makes food production not an industry? A product is being produced isn't it? It takes labor to produce that product, doesn't it?

Before the industrial revolution, it wasn't an industry, per se. It was inherently indvidiual, and there was little to no manufacture involved. Make wheat, grind to flour, make bread, sell bread. Agriculture involves the making of the wheat only.

How?

If unemployment is high enough, an employer can fire any worker who joins a union, and replace him, or can have the terms of his employees contract state that the employee cannot join or form a union.

Nationalization is not "state capitalism". The political rigging of competitive advantages through the "moral" workings of the state is state capitalism.

It shows the idiotic tendency of some leftists to take the characteristics of capitalism and assume that all systems that bear those characteristics are capitalistic. Then in an even greater fit of intellectual dishonesty, they use that illogical leap to assume that capitalism in turn bears all of the characteristics of these other systems.

I'm operating under a different definition of capitalism than you, apparently. My definition is based around hierarchical control of productive property, and the resulting wage-slavery. It makes no difference to me if the wage worker is a slave to the state bureaucracy of Marxism-Leninism, or to a business owning elite.

In almost all nations with both a mostly nationalized industry and the ability to extract resources from other nations, they have done so.

Perhaps we should conclude it is the state and not the economic organization of the society. Perhaps we should estimate which economic system promotes greater state power in determining which might be more conducive to colonialism and other state misdeeds.

And you don't think that both Marx and Lenin supported violence and domination as methods to secure their desires?

I'm not denying that. It is inevitable that those who have power will use it, regardless of what ideology they hide behind. There is no doubt that the state is an incredibly illegitimate part of the nexus of power. I'll be the first to argue that state socialism-cum-state capitalism breeds incredible concentrations of state power. But at the same time, it cannot be denied that unrestricted property rights can breed the same abuse and misery.

I don't deny that Marx and Lenin all too eagerly supported violence and domination. I was trying to point out that the beast that ideological Marxists created with the Soviet Union appalled even the most orthodox of Marxists.

It may not be inherent. But, in a period of time when there was no political democracy, it was very easy for business to enforce its will in government. If that meant conquering other countries (which is always profitable for victor), it happened. Elites didn't have to care about the well-being of anyone (they still don't), they only cared about maximum return. Mass theft and conquest has very high marginal returns.


Thats the problem there, not capitalism. Also, you seem to be arguing against the state in general rather then just capitalism. So why limit your attack to only capitalism?

If unemployment is high enough, an employer can fire any worker who joins a union, and replace him, or can have the terms of his employees contract state that the employee cannot join or form a union.

You said that already...

I'm operating under a different definition of capitalism than you, apparently. My definition is based around hierarchical control of productive property, and the resulting wage-slavery. It makes no difference to me if the wage worker is a slave to the state bureaucracy of Marxism-Leninism, or to a business owning elite.

You apparently don't have a definition:

So, let's cut down to the core of the capitalist system: the private ownership of productive property. This, more than anything else, is the core of the capitalist system. It is this private control of productive property that created many of the most horrible abuses of the post-industrial revolution world.

which would probably explain why your argument is bogus.

But at the same time, it cannot be denied that unrestricted property rights can breed the same abuse and misery.

I will wait for your argument behind this statement.

If unemployment is high enough, an employer can fire any worker who joins a union, and replace him, or can have the terms of his employees contract state that the employee cannot join or form a union.
How high is 'high enough'? The only time unemployment is ever very high is during deep recessions. Even then, workers can unionize and artificially restrict labour supply to force employers to offer better terms. Most of Keynes' economic theories, incidentally, are the product of the Great Depression and its experiences.

Thats the problem there, not capitalism. Also, you seem to be arguing against the state in general rather then just capitalism. So why limit your attack to only capitalism?

Ding ding ding!

The comparison in question is "Which system is more conducive to state power?" as I said before

Some of these arguments worked years ago and do not apply so well in todays world. Employers can not simple fire workers at will or more precisely won't if they do then chances are they are going to go out of business very fast.

It is true than when it comes to UNSKILLED labor such as digging ditches you can find someone to replace a fired employee very easily, but this does not work with jobs that require skilled labor.

You can not just decide to fire an excellent car mechanic and hope to stay in business. Why? Because it is hard to find someone who can replace him, a skilled mechanic is not something you can just hire any John Doe off the street to do. Also you have to pay skilled laborers competitive wages this means if you want to have a good mechanic then you have to pay him more than what someone else will.

Guess what if you don't want to pay well then that mechanic can do something insane like go and find a job that pays better or even crazy go into business for himself.

If you think in a modern Capitalist society a business can succeed without skilled laborers then you are mistaken because someone else will hire the best workers they can and steal your business because nobody is going to take their car to a shop where it will leave with more problems than it went in with, when they can simply take it across the street and have it come back as good as new.

Sorry for the opportunity that we Capitalists have provided...

So, let's cut down to the core of the capitalist system: the private ownership of productive property. This, more than anything else, is the core of the capitalist system.I hate to point this out, but private ownership wasn't invented by capitalism. It has been there, well... Literally forever. Unless you call the first time that a Homo Sapiens in southern Turkey took a handmade plough and called it 'Mine!' some time around 7000 B.C. the moment capitalism was invented, you're, simply put, wrong.

As centers of private power expanded, a mass of unemployed, downtrodden vagabonds in Europe, the focus of production shifted from independent artisans working with a few apprentices to the massive factory system, with thousands of people employed at minimal wages by a very small number of property owners. The factory employee has no inherent rights, his only right is the right to quit. He must do as his master tells him in the factory, or he can find work elsewhere. He could always be replaced by any one of the innumerable unskilled laborers begging for work.First of all, this system has collapsed - the theories predicting that skilled labour would be replaced by machines were wrong, as people producing and maintaining these machines were needed, requiring more skills. Machines have become our unskilled labour, with skilled labour demand massively increasing while unskilled labour demand collapsed (Thereby, incidentally, destroying one of Marx' central theorems)

Now, I'v noticed that you consider nationalisation of the industry to be nothing more than state capitalism - I'd object to calling it capitalism, but you're of course right in that nationalisation doesn't change the underlying economic principles - the problems remain, with a few additional problems (I.e. monopolies - incidentally, it bears noting that I'm allergic to monopolies, and that I can't see free market systems functioning without a degree of state interventionism to prevent a collapse. And we've since learned that environmental issues, too, require intervention by the state to prevent a collapse - this time not only in economic, but in absolute terms, including literally everything) being added.

The question is... What would you replace it with? I do seem to recall that the marxist reply to this tends to be the 'Democratisation' of industry ownership - but a bunch of workers will have an inherent self-interest in exactly the same things individual ownership is interested in - namely, profits, expansion, the likes -, changing, again, absolutely nothing, other than that you've a union running a factory, which (By virtue of longwinded democratic processes & the likes) is somewhat more inefficient than a hierarchical structure. Now, I'll be the first to admit that hierarchical sructures aren't infalliable (See Daimler Chrysler), and if run poorly, the results can easily be worse than the results a 'Democratically' run factory might provide - but you've still added some nifty bureaucracy for no real gain.

What's the point?

Of course, free market systems don't make everyone happy. There'll always be losers, there will always be injustice, and the claim that individual skills will inevitably result in individual success is of very limited value - the chance that it'll help with success is greater than in any other system, but it's still more dependent on luck than anything else.

But free market systems - capitalism - aren't meant to be perfect. Perfection is unattainable. They're merely meant to be better than any other system. And until we've reached the point of a post-scarcity society (Which is attainable in terms of raw materials and 'Hard' good producton, but not in terms of entertainment), I don't really see anything that could replace it and, indeed, be 'Better'.

For that matter, practically speaking, unions do form a democratic basis for any given company - frankly, social market economies are just about the closest thing we've ever had to the Marxist ideal, with a fair bit of freedom added - unlike Marx, social market economies don't require child labour, nor do they acknowledge the idea of forced labour - one might remember that Marx states quite explicitly that not working is not to be allowed, and people who refuse to join society and do as it desires have to deal with negative sanctions well in excess of 'Well, no wage for you', something capitalism doesn't know (Though pre-capitalist societies knew it).

This industrial growth lead to an inexorable search for new markets and new raw materials. Hence, we enter into colonialism, and all of the evils it has brought on the world, from the millions of third world peasants killed by colonial oppression to the ultimate rise of nationalism and the ignition of the First World War.You saying that Sargon the First (~ 2500 B.C, I believe) was a capitalist? Colonialism was there way before capitalism.

In fact, it has it beat by a few thousand years.

Now, I suppose that a case can be made (Based on Marxist theory) that Sargon the First counts as a state capitalist - his ventures, fed by glory, did evidently have an economic background. But this brings us back to the basic problem that by this definition, everything from the start of the neolithic right up to the present day has been 'Capitalist' in nature. It brings us back to the point that a company run perfectly democratic by its workers will still have the desire to expand, to acquire resources, to increase its profits.

To get away from this, you must remove the way economics work on the most basic level - supply and demand -, and you can only do this by giving supply the value 'Infinite' (Or demand the value 'Zero'. But killing off mankind might be a bit counterproductive). Unfortunately, our resources are not infinite, and probably never will be (Unless we start to seriously fuck with physics).

Historically, the greatest force behind colonialism has been private capitalism

No.

Right. All of the things the US did during the cold war were motivated by capitalism.:rolleyes: