Any other anti-capitalists in the house? A compelling argument against capitalism

I CHALLENGE (rebel resource) any socialist to read at least the first few paragraphs here!

argue ANY point in relation to RON PAUL..

Under Communism lack of competition causes inadequacy, under Capitalism massive amounts of money are wasted on advertising worthless products while products of worth are made so cheap that they (ideally) start falling apart the moment the warranty expires.

Democracy caters to the lowest common denominator, which is quite low, while a dictatorship doesn't work well because power corrupts, not to mention that most democratic parties are all about retaining their political power, rather than doing the right thing, which arguably makes a democracy worse. This however is too much of a shocking concept for most people who've been brainwashed to idolize democracy to the same degree as the one God.

Keep in mind that a whole slew of issues are grouped among socialism that have nothing to do with it, the same goes for capitalism.


What it comes down to is having someone capable in charge who doesn't make too many stupid errors, regardless of that person being a dictator or democratically chosen, or being a socialist or capitalist.
 
yes i agree and i understand that an online message board is not the place to be reading textbooks. but i am a firm advocate and believer in free market and COMPETITIVE capitalism...

the problem with the United States as i see it is that the gov.. interferes TOO MUCH with capitalism.

Bravo. That's a summary that ... well, sums it all up.
 
one more time because i want to hijack this thread in the name of the RON PAUL revolution!

read this and argue for socialism!

Chapter I

The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom


It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of "democratic socialism" by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individuai freedom imposed by "totalitarian socialism" in Russia, and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements. The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.

Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.

A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on. Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.
 
Last edited:
Communism would be great it if weren't for people. Ditto for capitalism. Of the two, I'll take capitalism any day, thanks. Greed, evil, and poor decision making are best spread out among the masses rather than concentrated in one supremely inept group of central planners. Less bad shit happens this way.
 
We could debate the destructive effect of materialism on the human psyche, the raping of the planet due to rabid consumerism, or the fact that people buy pointless crap on a whim, and rack up massive debt.

please do tell me more about "destructive effect of materialism on human psyche" and "raping of the planet" (with the emphasis on planet's genitalia and its other needs).

as far as buying pointless crap is concerned, i guess you do agree that you alone are the ultimate judge of what products people need and do not need.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top