Black People And Capitalism DON'T Mix

[Domingo Halliburton]

.....

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

somebody pretty much said it but:

socialism/communism sounds good until you see the countries that have fully embraced it.

Its funny that everywhere thats ever tried it is because they were pissed they were on the losing end so they went all the way left.

Its like the child's answer to how to "fix" the world.

 

[BlackStarLine]

I don't think Black People and Capitalism are diametrically opposed. Actually, if we used the system correctly, it could be quite beneficial.

 

[feelosofer]

The problem is that we don't use Capitalism to our greatest benefit. We need to game the system in a sense.

 

[theworldismine13]

I don't think Black People and Capitalism are diametrically opposed. Actually, if we used the system correctly, it could be quite beneficial.

exactly the problem is that people see the word capitalism and all the think about is giant corporations, people dont realize that capitalism also means owning real estate and establishing banks and small business in your community

 

[Medicate]

All I have to say next is that if Capitalism is so great, than you shouldn't have homeless people and human beings selling their bodies to make it up the ladder in this great Capitalist land of opportunity and wealth....

You shouldn't have people with multiple degrees not able to find LABOR

Capitalism has become such a vulture people can't even be a slave...

 

[theworldismine13]

All I have to say next is that if Capitalism is so great, than you shouldn't have homeless people and human beings selling their bodies to make it up the ladder in this great Capitalist land of opportunity and wealth....

You shouldn't have people with multiple degrees not able to find LABOR

Capitalism has become such a vulture people can't even be a slave...

nobody is disputing that capitalism has problems, im disputing that socialism is the answer, as can be seen by the histories of the USSR, communist china and north korea handing power to governments is worse than handing over to corporations

 

[CHL]

Socialism cannot support 7 billion people.

The Free Market destroys collectivism.

I can't take anyone serious that talks either or.

If we reach the supposed "singularity" in the next 25-30 years, have AI completing the majority of menial tasks, and developed alternative sources of energy (fusion) then maybe it can support the worlds whole population to a very good standard?

But I do agree if we are talking about right now, 2014. Mixed markets are the ideal solution currently.

 

[notPsychosiz]

exactly the problem is that people see the word capitalism and all the think about is giant corporations, people dont realize that capitalism also means owning real estate and establishing banks and small business in your community

What you are describing can only exist within anarchocapitalism. In a normal capitalist system the market is decided by and ownership is restricted to the ruling class. Attempts to change or shift power can be blocked because they need to be approved by the ruling class. By default, those actions are illegal.

As I already mentioned, because of liscenses and permits, it is defacto illegal to sell or resell anything commercially. The liscense gives you a pass so that your actions are legal where another person doing the exact same thing is not.
Because you have to present a case for a liscence, and/or permit, whenever a business (or business owner) is counterintuitive to the status quo the majority already in power can deny them. Attempts to proceede anyway can then be shut down under law.

Its really ashamed that they dont teach courses on anarchy within the school system, because even studied economists have poor grasps of anarchocapitalism, anarchosyndicalism, and other ommited concepts which bring to light the glaring holes in typical capitalist talking points.

But in short, no, you can not start a bank.
I don't mean no one can start a bank... I mean you cannot start a bank. Because the bankers ultimately decide who gets in, much like a frat.

A white jew owned the clippers... he sold the team. Now another white jew owns the clippers.
Don't fool yourself. Magic Johnson didn't even have a shot.

 

[theworldismine13]

What you are describing can only exist within anarchocapitalism. In a normal capitalist system the market is decided by and ownership is restricted to the ruling class. Attempts to change or shift power can be blocked because they need to be approved by the ruling class. By default, those actions are illegal.

As I already mentioned, because of liscenses and permits, it is defacto illegal to sell or resell anything commercially. The liscense gives you a pass so that your actions are legal where another person doing the exact same thing is not.
Because you have to present a case for a liscence, and/or permit, whenever a business (or business owner) is counterintuitive to the status quo the majority already in power can deny them. Attempts to proceede anyway can then be shut down under law.

Its really ashamed that they dont teach courses on anarchy within the school system, because even studied economists have poor grasps of anarchocapitalism, anarchosyndicalism, and other ommited concepts which bring to light the glaring holes in typical capitalist talking points.

But in short, no, you can not start a bank.
I don't mean no one can start a bank... I mean you cannot start a bank. Because the bankers ultimately decide who gets in, much like a frat.

A white jew owned the clippers... he sold the team. Now another white jew owns the clippers.
Don't fool yourself. Magic Johnson didn't even have a shot.

and with all those issues its still better than socialism

 

[notPsychosiz]

Socialism cannot support 7 billion people.

The Free Market destroys collectivism.

I can't take anyone serious that talks either or.

Communism could support 7 billion people. Assuming there are enough resources to do so.
If there are not enough resources then it is not a systematic failure, its a practical failure, because no system could support those people under any circumstance.

Thats just math.

 

[Poitier]

If there are not enough resources then it is not a systematic failure, its a practical failure, because no system could support those people under any circumstance.

false

 

[notPsychosiz]

and with all those issues its still better than socialism

Better for some, by design. Not better for most.
Because you have a computer/phone you are in the better category... but there are people without those luxuries dying right now that would be far better off under socialism.

Thats why I don't usually discuss world matters with the privelaged. They don't see the big picture.
Listening to people support the system where they get electronic devices and people accross the world die in mines to get the components to put in their electronic devices... There is always something worrisome about that, to me.

 

[DEAD7]

An honest look at how things were before capitalism, and how they are now after should be all that is needed to sell it.

 

[notPsychosiz]

false

Are you gonna elaborate?
Under what circumstance could a system without resources support a contingent that requires resources?

Please enlighten me, cause if you have the answer to that we can change the thread topic to "Poiter explains Alchemy"

Or... are you gonna stick with 'false' like its profound in some way.