The part you quoted was not addressed to you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
This is part of the reason I have a problem with capitalism
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
The part you quoted was not addressed to you.
I wouldn't say "countless," but there most definitely have been uprisings. Centuries of peasant revolts have been part of recorded history. 1848 was a pivotal year in Europe, as there were multiple uprisings in several countries. And, of course, the Russian Revolutions and the Chinese Communist Revolution.
Even in the U.S., we've had strike riots, labor revolts, slave uprisings, etc.
Are you suggesting that none of these events ever happened?
Well, I was just wondering if there was some official announcement by the Chinese government, such as "Today we are abandoning communism and adopting capitalism." Why is the ruling party still called "Communist"?
But the real question is this: Could China have developed to the point they're at now without Mao and the Communist Revolution? Could Chiang Kai-Shek have led China to the same level of power that they have today?
Fact is, China was a mess in 1945, just as Russia was a mess in 1917. Decades of capitalist rule led them to that sorry state of affairs to the point where radical action was the only way to get them out of it.
Audie
Veteran Member
Virtue signalling alert!!
Audie
Veteran Member
shmogie
Well-Known Member
The new deal was designed to end the depression, it failed, the war ended the depression.
The new deal was an attempted economy kick start. The WPA and other programs were government make work programs hoping to infuse cash back into the economy.
Social Security, a giant ponzi scheme, was a good idea of that government, one of the few that actually had long term impact.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
My faux pas, I understood that because posts were seen by all, all had the right to respond.
I would like to give you a few names and have you tell them that if a post is only directed to them may they respond, otherwise, stay shtum.
My experience with them shows they didn´t get the memo, either.
I agree with you on this point. Notwithstanding an earlier claim about those who criticize capitalism are those aren't good at it, I find a lot of capitalism's staunchest cheerleaders are indeed those who haven't been very good at it. On the other hand, many socialists came from educated, upper class backgrounds (including Lenin and Trotsky, among others).
What I try to look at are the results of what a given economic system does for a country as a whole. That's the key thing. Those of us who know and understand history are aware that comparing Russia in 1917 versus 1957, there's no comparison. In 1917, they were starving and on the verge of total collapse. In 1957 (even after suffering untold devastation in WW2), they were the first country to launch a rocket into space.
Just that fact alone makes the argument a slam dunk, and yet, capitalists have been quite adept and artful about dodging little points like that. Another point is that capitalist Russia did extremely poorly against the Germans in WW1, yet socialist Russia fared much better against the exact same enemy 20 years later.
Likewise, capitalist China in WW2 did very poorly against the Japanese, but socialist China did much better against the US and other Allied forces just five years later in the Korean War.
But instead, capitalists will often make disingenuous comparisons between the US and socialist countries which have endured far greater suffering and devastation during the World Wars, while the US was insulated by a two-ocean buffer.
Of course, the US is going to have a better standard of living, just as our living standard is better than most capitalist countries in the world. All these people crossing the border and desperate to come to the United States - they're not coming from socialist countries.
I think people have their own individual reasons for supporting one system over the other. I think many Americans supported the US system over the Soviet system not so much over economics, but over religion and the American hatred and fear of the "godless commies." Even historically, in popular culture, it tended to be more oriented towards the common man, while the robber barons, carpetbaggers, etc. were roundly criticized - not because was advocating for a system known as "socialism," but just because they were considered bad people.
The labor movement grew out of an earlier era, and it was decidedly non-communist - and union membership rose and became some of America's staunchest patriots. I think a resurgence in labor unions and a labor movement in general is what this country needs, and in fact, capitalists should welcome this as a hedge against the dreaded "socialism" they fear so much.
Well, at least from an American point of view, a lot of problems have been caused by capitalism. One of the earliest problems we faced was slavery, which led to the deadliest war in US history. In the modern era, we look back on a lot of America's sins of the past - things for which many Americans feel some degree of remorse and regret over. But I think it's important to look at the reason why these atrocities and historical sins occurred. What was the motivation?
Granted, one can point to numerous successes and say that America has done quite well for itself. I haven't denied this either, although I question the wisdom of those who would attribute America's economic successes solely to some abstract "system" called "capitalism."
That's one thing I remember about the standard Cold War era argument about communism vs. capitalism. I came to realize that both sides had rigid ideologues who adhered to their favored "system" just as fervently as religious adherents.
Okay, so we both agree that capitalism is not perfect. I think it was when you used the phrase "undemonstrated calumny" which is what threw me off earlier.
Well, it seems he knew enough to see Stalin as the lesser of two evils compared to Hitler. It was the same for FDR, as he was also anti-communist, but saw the malignant nationalism of the Axis as the greater threat to world stability.
Well, maybe it wasn't lamp posts. I thought that you mentioned something about people being executed by hanging under Mao's reign.
It depends on what it is and what your point of view is. I think that we've seen a fair amount of social engineering in the United States, and it's worked to some degree.
I was just demonstrating.
Well, sure, I guess I'll have to take your word for it.
Well, you were asking a question which appeared to be an inquiry as to whether a comment addressing another poster also applied to you. My response was that it didn't apply to you. You asked me a question, and I answered it. What else were you expecting? I never said you didn't have a right to respond or anything of the sort. Cool out, man.
The New Deal didn't fail, but no one was expecting a quick fix anyway.
Of course, let's not forget the fact that capitalism caused the Depression.
The war did create the need for further government intervention to organize the country and marshal our resources and industries on a national scale required for world war. It required centralized management and governmental control (such as wage and price controls).
Here's another example of capitalists behaving badly.
California man gets 8 ½ years for forced immigrant labor
California man gets 8 ½ years for forced immigrant labor
BSM1
What? Me worry?
But...but...I thought we were talking about Capitalism, not just any garden variety revolt. How about giving us the rules.
Well, what system are we talking about? Upthread, @shmogie referred to it as follows:
We're talking about a system in place for 6000 years? A lot of revolts during that time. Not to mention wars. A lot of wars.
Of course, the various economic systems used throughout history may not be "true capitalism," but they sure as heck weren't socialist. But even going back to Roman times, they still had the accumulation of wealth, a class hierarchy, private property - similar to capitalism of today.
Shad
Veteran Member
I think you have no idea how these crimes are handled thus is just a standard socialist rhetoric lacking substance. Robert Stanford got 110 years for fraud and a ponzi scheme. Keith Pound got 740...
PureX
Veteran Member
PureX
Veteran Member
Labor unions are a big part of the "socialism" that the capitalists fear so much, because the capitalists want to gain the maximum return on the capital they've invested, and labor costs cut into that return, significantly. They view labor as an enemy to their goal. And because that goal is based on greed, everything and everyone else becomes antithetical to it's intent, and therefor, an 'enemy' of it. The capitalists goal is fundamentally anti-social. And so they are fundamentally anti-socialist.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
When it comes down to facts that can be shown, sure.
When it comes down to opinion, nah. People will find whatever reason to justify their already pre-established conclusions.
Audie
Veteran Member
Ok gotcha. The British East India Co., tulip bubble, United Fruit Co.
No question that Euro-American imperialism has radically
changed the world.