Black People And Capitalism DON'T Mix

[Poitier]

Under what circumstance could a system without resources support a contingent that requires resources?

capitalism gets more out of those resources via innovation and industrial processes

 

[theworldismine13]

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.

no its better for most, the standard of living for even the poor in capitalist countries is better then those in socialist and communist countries

i should saw was cuz like i said pretty much all socialist and communist countries collapsed in the 20th century

 

[notPsychosiz]

capitalism gets more out of those resources via innovation and industrial processes

So then there are enough resources, or enough that the resources can be stretched or dilluted to produce enough.
Under that scenereo communism works just fine.

There are no industrual processes or innovations that are somehow exclusive to capitalism.

Artists, inventors, philosophers, athletes are all treated as valid jobs under socialist/communist systems.
If I were in China I could get a grant and go to school to be a fukking magician if I wanted.

They have state funded magicians.
But thats because they have state funded everything.

Over here, if I want to be a magician its about to be a long hard road... and thats not an example I pulled out of thin air, I know they have state funded magicians cause I saw an episode of Penn & Teller where they went to China.

Every aspect of job, from astronaut to prostitute exists under socialism and communism just like caputalism.
You are buying into that American Exceptionalism propaganda that we do things other people don't or can't.

 

[Poitier]

There are no industrual processes or innovations that are somehow exclusive to capitalism.

No, industrialism isn't happening with a social economy, unless you wanted the shytty quality of life China and Russia enjoys

 

[Poitier]

You also do not "choose" a trade many times in China, the state often chooses for you.

 

[DEAD7]

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.

At face value this is true, but allocating those resources is far too large and complex a job for a govt. to adequately manage. Russia was a nation blessed with an abundance of resources, yet people starved under communism., same with China. It wasn't til they adopted facets of capitalism that they began to be taken seriously.

When you strip away the lofty talk, its really an arrogant system. It assumes a few exceptional people can competently guide the allocation of resources for millions.

 

[notPsychosiz]

No, industrialism isn't happening with a social economy, unless you wanted the shytty quality of life China and Russia enjoys

Thats what I mean by talking to the privaliged about world issues.
You are looking at it from the perspective of moving from America to Russia or China. I agree, thats not the look.

But you don't seem to realize that to most people in the world moving to China or Russia is like hitting the jackpot. Its an upgrade of a huge magnatude.
There are only a few places on that are better off than Russia or China globally. You think they let anybody host the Olympics and sit at the UN council?

Fox News is doing a better job than I thought cause people really don't get the proportionalloty. They think its the USA then everywhere else is Liberia.

You also do not "choose" a trade many times in China, the state often chooses for you.

Thats true. You might end up in a job you don't like.
But how many people "choose" McDonalds and Walmart over here?
Thats just where they work.

 

[DEAD7]

People seem to think laws were passed and child labor stopped, laws were passed and 7 day work weeks stopped. In reality, it was the wealth and standard of living created by capitalism that made it so children didn't need to work.
Child labor along with all the other "horrors of the market" were on the decline when they were outlawed... a fact often overlooked when attempting to vilify capitalism.




Side note: I used to think it was stupidity to advocate socialism, but now I realize its the opposite... it actually takes a really intelligent person to overlook the track record of centrally planned states and justify them before the bar of reason. The 'average joe' will take one look at the poverty of socialist states, the wealth of capitalist states and easily reach the right conclusion.

 

[Poitier]

Thats what I mean by talking to the privaliged about world issues.
You are looking at it from the perspective of moving from America to Russia or China. I agree, thats not the look.

But you don't seem to realize that to most people in the world moving to China or Russia is like hitting the jackpot. Its an upgrade of a huge magnatude.
There are only a few places on that are better off than Russia or China globally. You think they let anybody host the Olympics and sit at the UN council?

Fox News is doing a better job than I thought cause people really don't get the proportionalloty. They think its the USA then everywhere else is Liberia.

No, we are arguing which system can best support 7 billion people. I like a healthy mix but I'm not buying "industrial socialism."

 

[notPsychosiz]

At face value this is true, but allocating those resources is far too large and complex a job for a govt. to adequately manage. Russia was a nation blessed with an abundance of resources, yet people starved under communism., same with China. It wasn't til they adopted facets of capitalism that they began to be taken seriously.

When you strip away the lofty talk, its really an arrogant system. It assumes a few exceptional people can competently guide the allocation of resources for millions.

The world as a whole actually believes the American government to be the most arrogant, by the way. They polled like 250 countries back in 2010.

Any idea can be poorly executed or mishandled. If you fill positions with incompetent people then competent plans fail. This is the case with anything, its not a problem inherent to communism. In fact, capitalism has ridiculous loopholes that are unpatched to this day. Thats why many companies intentionally run the company into the ground because its more profitable for the ceo for the company to be bankrupt. Then they golden parachute away. Considering what capitalism is supposed to be, this is ridiculous. You are rewarded more for doing poorly in many cases under capiralism, or dragging your feet.

 

[notPsychosiz]

No, we are arguing which system can best support 7 billion people. I like a healthy mix but I'm not buying "industrial socialism."

Here is how I see it.
There are people at the top, in the middle, and in the bottom.

Socialism would bring everyone to the middle.

So, the net value of who is affected for the better vs who is affected for the worst comes down to this... are there more people on the top or the bottom right now?
I think there are more people on the bottom (by a large number) so them moving up to the middle does more good than the fewer people on the top that would have to move down.

Even though me and you would be negatively affected, I believe the majority of people would be positively affected.

Its all hypothetical though.
I'll catch you guys later I gotta run to the fish spot even though it might not be here under communism

 

[DEAD7]

The world as a whole actually believes the American government to be the most arrogant, by the way. They polled like 250 countries back in 2010.

Any idea can be poorly executed or mishandled. If you fill positions with incompetent people then competent plans fail. This is the case with anything, its not a problem inherent to communism. In fact, capitalism has ridiculous loopholes that are unpatched to this day. Thats why many companies intentionally run the company into the ground because its more profitable for the ceo for the company to be bankrupt. Then they golden parachute away. Considering what capitalism is supposed to be, this is ridiculous. You are rewarded more for doing poorly in many cases under capiralism, or dragging your feet.

Communism is far more arrogant than capitalism... and the "it was mishandled all those other times, this time things will be different" argument is hilarious.

The point is even with you're critiques (which I disagree with) it is still the best system available, hence its adoption by every first world country.

 

[A Real Human Bean]

People seem to think laws were passed and child labor stopped, laws were passed and 7 day work weeks stopped. In reality, it was the wealth and standard of living created by capitalism that made it so children didn't need to work.
Child labor along with all the other "horrors of the market" were on the decline when they were outlawed... a fact often overlooked when attempting to vilify capitalism.

This is completely wrong and bears no resemblance to the reality. Exploitation of child labor was outlawed and eventually stopped because workers organized and fought for it (and also because the level of child mortality had risen to level of horror that parliament was simply unable to ignore). Likewise, the standard of living rose, in part, because workers organized and fought for it. There has always been a middle/upper class bourgeois/aristocracy and they only sought to give as much concessions to the workers as they thought was absolutely necessary to prevent social upheaval. They were completely fine with accumulating capital while the majority of the population lived in terrible poverty. This is clear from the actual record of labor history.

But even when there were laws protecting child labor, factory owners evaded them and in some cases just broke them completely.

And Socialism doesn't imply centrally planned states. That's how some people carried out their form of governing under the banner of Socialism, but it had virtually nothing to do with the actual ideals of Socialism. Centrally planned totalitarian dictatorships are as far as you can get from a Socialist organization of society. But the term has undergone such perversion in the US that it's barely worth using any more.

The fact that wealth and standards of living rose under capitalism isn't an argument for capitalism. Germany experienced extraordinary economic growth under Nazi dictator rule. Is that an argument for totalitarianism?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

This is completely wrong and bears no resemblance to the reality. Exploitation of child labor was outlawed and eventually stoppped because workers organized and fought for it (and also because the level of child mortality had risen to level or horror that parliament was simply unable to ignore). Likewise, the standard of living rose because workers organized and fought for it. There has always been a middle/upper class bourgeois/aristocracy and they only sought to give as much concessions to the workers as they thought was absolutely necessary to prevent social upheaval. They were completely fine with accumulating capital while the majority of the population lived in terrible poverty. This is clear from the actual record of labor history.

But even when there were laws protecting child labor, factory owners evaded them and in some cases just broke them completely.

And Socialism doesn't imply centrally planned states. That's how some people carried out their form of governing under the banner of Socialism, but it had virtually nothing to do with the actual ideals of Social. Centrally planned totalitarian dictatorships are as far as you can get from a Socialist organization of society. But the term has undergone such perversion in the US that it's barely worth using any more.

 

[Poitier]

And Socialism doesn't imply centrally planned states. That's how some people carried out their form of governing under the banner of Socialism, but it had virtually nothing to do with the actual ideals of Socialism. Centrally planned totalitarian dictatorships are as far as you can get from a Socialist organization of society. But the term has undergone such perversion in the US that it's barely worth using any more.

Central planning was a necessity when those ideals were applied (especially at the magnitude of millions). No system works exactly as intended.