Isn't the inability to protect and preserve your system from outsiders failure?
Heck, you could say Nazism was a success except for them meanies attacking it.
Capitalism can not eradicate poverty
- Thread starter gore0bsessed
- Start date
Heck, you could say Nazism was a success except for them meanies attacking it.
A failure of the ideology itself? Of course not.
Nazism never was a success in any sense of the word and you've got communists to thank for stomping out that bankrupt immoral fascist ideology.
You're suddenly denying the USSR was communist ? hmmm.
Communists do something good = not actually communist
Communists do bad = definitely communist
got it
Communists do something good = not actually communist
Communists do bad = definitely communist
got it
Suddenly? The USSR was an authoritarian socialist state that paid lip service to communism.
Have you ever read Das Kapital? Or any other communist philosophy? By Marxist standards, the USSR wasn't communist.
Regardless of how accurately the Soviets followed Marxism, Communists still fight against fascism to this day. The Marxist-Leninist party in Turkey for instance, have been battling ISIS and the terrorist Erdogan regime. You won't find a communist that isn't vehemently opposed to fascism, misogyny, racism, or any type of marginalizing of minorities.
The U.S Invasion of Grenada.
The U.S Invasion of Grenada.
What’s the purpose of it? Capitalism would not collapse if Grenada remained revolutionary. And Reagan was right, it wasn’t a matter of direct resources that you needed from that country. He said, “Nutmeg is not the question.” I mean, that was Grenada’s biggest export, we could get perfectly good nutmeg from Africa, you don’t need Grenada’s nutmeg. So why did they invade Grenada? They invaded Grenada because they were serving notice to the people of the Caribbean, and to the people of Latin America, and to the people of the world, that you cannot drop out of your client-state free-market system. That if you tried to take an independent source, and that if you use your land, your labor, your resources, and your capital, and your markets in a different way, in a collectivist way, if you use them to benefit the needs of your people, rather than to be milked like a cow for foreign investors, if you do that, this is what’s going to happen to you.
Michael Parenti
I've been scrolling through this thread and haven't noticed a clear argument that capitalism can eradicate poverty. But, I'm finding lots of attempts at diversion.....well, the commies were worse etc.....which doesn't address the merits/or lack of merits of capitalism!
We do know that capitalism left unrestrained, can do an effective job at concentrating the wealth among a tiny privileged minority....according to a new report from Credit Suisse....
and:
Somebody needs to point out that "financial assets" can increase irrespective of what happens in the real economy, because they can be created out of thin air! Most of our money in circulation is created through the creation of new debt obligations. And, as long as economies continue to grow year after year, the creditor is payed back with interest. And that increase in money supply is not inflationary as long as the economy continues to grow.
So, what happens when the realities of life in a finite world bring constant economic expansion to an end? Judging from the global picture, it seems that we may be finding out very soon. Sure hope there's a backup plan to capitalism which can keep economies functioning without growth. Because the growth we've been reading about in the last couple of years looks like derivatives ponzi schemes and fake economic numbers.
We do know that capitalism left unrestrained, can do an effective job at concentrating the wealth among a tiny privileged minority....according to a new report from Credit Suisse....
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/10/14/weal-o14.html
and:
Somebody needs to point out that "financial assets" can increase irrespective of what happens in the real economy, because they can be created out of thin air! Most of our money in circulation is created through the creation of new debt obligations. And, as long as economies continue to grow year after year, the creditor is payed back with interest. And that increase in money supply is not inflationary as long as the economy continues to grow.
So, what happens when the realities of life in a finite world bring constant economic expansion to an end? Judging from the global picture, it seems that we may be finding out very soon. Sure hope there's a backup plan to capitalism which can keep economies functioning without growth. Because the growth we've been reading about in the last couple of years looks like derivatives ponzi schemes and fake economic numbers.
The merit of capitalism is simply that it has proven time and again to be the hands-down worldbeater at generating invention, innovation, and economic growth.
Also, as I've pointed out, "poverty" is not an absolute. It is relative to the society in question. An impoverished Canadian or American would be a well-to-do to wealthy Somalian, Venezuelan, or Pakistani. "Poverty" is merely where one is on the scale, and there's always a scale.
Further, "capitalism" is every bit as much a fiction as "communism." There is not, and has never been, a purely capitalist economy.
Which ties into. . .
Finally, capitalism is not intended to eradicate poverty. That's not its function. So accusing it of not eradicating poverty is like saying a power drill is defective because it can't cure cancer.
In the real world, capitalist societies do better at elevating the material circumstances of the poor because capitalism tends to create a bigger pie, so even those getting the smallest pieces get more. But the redistributive function of societies is not capitalism, nor part of capitalism.
that is the hard truth that gets consistently ignored or denied by liberals.I would guess, if anything, capitalism could be a cause of poverty.
This is a lot of nonsense liberal idealism. Capitalism has done nothing to create innovation.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/socialism-innovation-capitalism-smith/
This is just such a pathetic argument i see all the time. i also don't know how it's in defense of capitalism either because those third world countries are only poor because of capitalist exploitation.
If it's not purely capitalist, what else is it? let me guess, you think social welfare programs are socialist?
- Daniel de Leon 1908
Uh, yea except nearly every capitalist apologist says Capitalism does eliminate poverty. You're right, it's not intended to do so, it very clearly doesn't. It IS intended to enrich capitalists at the expense of the lower classes however.
Capitalist nations have such an abundance of wealth from the exploitation of foreign countries, the exploiting of their national resources and their labour, that poorer people in the first world sometimes get some of the crumbs of the "pie". How is this a good defense of capitalism, and how does it make capitalism better at any other system?
I'm sorry, arguing with true believers is a game for idiots. Which I'm not.
Y'all have a real nice day now, hear?
You may not be an idiot, but you sure as hell don't know much about capitalism or socialism/communism. neither do most people for that matter.
That's why self appointed experts are needed. Because no one knows as much as they do.
More than you do about either, because you deliberately reject more than half of what there is to know about either. You're an ideologue. No different from the freaks who say all government is bad and refuse to comprehend that government is not only often good, but essential. You reject facts that don't fit your theories, a fundamental mistake.
The reason communism fails is the same reason capitalism fails - humanity. Ideologies are nice but when you see the bottom line, it is always that one human wants power over another and "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". - J Dalberg-Acton. He also said, "The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern". One can fit any ideology wherever the word "class" sits in that comment as well.
The problem ideologues have is their failure to acknowledge that humans are fallible.
The problem ideologues have is their failure to acknowledge that humans are fallible.
Fallible as in prone to be greedy and self absorbed. Agree completely. Lots of good ideas out there, if they can escape human contamination.