Capitalism Sucks

[Revoltingest]

Yes that's right. I do not believe there is any better system than the one we have. We just need to get better at making it work for us. The current main problem I see is a lack of ability to attract good enough people into politics. But that may be a UK perspective.....

The only better system I see is the one have with enhancements.

 

[Kooky]

Yes that's right. I do not believe there is any better system than the one we have. We just need to get better at making it work for us. The current main problem I see is a lack of ability to attract good enough people into politics. But that may be a UK perspective.....

That's a sad indictment of human society.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's a sad indictment of human society.

I do agree with this. When we cease striving to improve, it never happens.
And, of course, every system that came before seemed just as sure as the best and here to stay.
But nothing lasts forever.

 

[Laika]

You are equating "the left" with revolutionary communism - a common mistake, but still a mistake.
A substantial portion - I would even hazard to say, the majority - are not revolutionaries and do not seek a violent overthrow of the capitalist order. So what you are demanding of leftists here is to lie to themselves and others.

The actual faction within leftist politics that is actually in favor of violent revolution is a tiny fringe even within leftism, and the people who would actually be prepared to get up and start attacking governmental facilities or capitalist enterprises within a reasonable timeframe would be a tiny fringe among those.

As someone who considers themselves to be on the far left, I believe that you are correct in your assessment that a revolution would be neither practical nor feasible as is - and I would strongly argue the overwhelming majority of leftists, including most revolutionary leftists, would agree with you on this as well.


Sounds like your best bet is to let the military take over and run the place, then.


I think you are underestimating the ongoing loss of lives due to capitalism, as well as the loss of lives that we can expect in the not-too-distant future once our planet melts and we start shooting desperate immigrants at our borders.

So, despite the fact you think capitalism will produce a loss of life greater than a nuclear war, you think that a revolution won’t happen because the left (however you wish to define it) won’t react to that?

 

[Heyo]

The only better system I see is the one have with enhancements.

When a system has a systemic fault, you can try and tweak it as much as you want, it will remain faulty.

 

[exchemist]

That's a sad indictment of human society.

It's just being practical.

I have little time for daydream political theories. History shows how hard it is to make any of them work and the (usually futile) attempt to change always causes enormous pain and suffering.

 

[Revoltingest]

When a system has a systemic fault, you can try and tweak it as much as you want, it will remain faulty.

When there are several competing systems,
select the one that performs best....flaws & all.
To pick the worst, solely because the best has
flaws, is insanity.

 

[Kooky]

It's just being practical.

I have little time for daydream political theories. History shows how hard it is to make any of them work and the (usually futile) attempt to change always causes enormous pain and suffering.

What if that change, and its accompanied pain and suffering, was coming anyway? Would you rather sit in the battlements of a failing system, convinced that we need to defend it and retain comfort and security for the wealthiest, or would you rather accept the notion of change as necessity, and that we can be the authors of it, and decide to lessen the suffering and pain that comes with it?

 

[Kooky]

So, despite the fact you think capitalism will produce a loss of life greater than a nuclear war, you think that a revolution won’t happen because the left (however you wish to define it) won’t react to that?

You are working under a false dichotomy; the only country that has used nuclear weapons in the context of international warfare so far, is the vanguard of capitalism. If a conflict went nuclear, it would be conflict within the context of our current system.

Cheerleading capitalism does not protect us from mass suffering and mass death; Market is not a vengeful god to be placated with prayer or sacrifice, and nuclear war would not be its punishment for failing to properly follow its divine tenets. If nuclear war were to come, it would be at the end of a chain of conflict and escalation, and preceded by a conflict of interests over scarce resources.

 

[exchemist]

What if that change, and its accompanied pain and suffering, was coming anyway? Would you rather sit in the battlements of a failing system, convinced that we need to defend it and retain comfort and security for the wealthiest, or would you rather accept the notion of change as necessity, and that we can be the authors of it, and decide to lessen the suffering and pain that comes with it?

I also have little time for vacuous "what if" questions. What if the sky were made of concrete?

You tell me what change, specifically, you have in mind and then we may have something worth discussing.

 

[Kooky]

I also have little time for vacuous "what if" questions. What if the sky were made of concrete?

You tell me what change, specifically, you have in mind and then we may have something worth discussing.

The "what if" was rhetorical, in all honesty. We are watching our system failing to contain climate change. Based on your argument so far, it seem like you would recommend a total lack of action in that regard - to be content with letting things go on as they are, and trust in the power of billionaires to deliver us from that problem. What do you think about that?

 

[exchemist]

The "what if" was rhetorical, in all honesty. We are watching our system failing to contain climate change. Based on your argument so far, it seem like you would recommend a total lack of action in that regard - to be content with letting things go on as they are, and trust in the power of billionaires to deliver us from that problem. What do you think about that?

You seem to live under a rock.

 

[Laika]

You are working under a false dichotomy; the only country that has used nuclear weapons in the context of international warfare so far, is the vanguard of capitalism. If a conflict went nuclear, it would be conflict within the context of our current system.

Cheerleading capitalism does not protect us from mass suffering and mass death; Market is not a vengeful god to be placated with prayer or sacrifice, and nuclear war would not be its punishment for failing to properly follow its divine tenets. If nuclear war were to come, it would be at the end of a chain of conflict and escalation, and preceded by a conflict of interests over scarce resources.

How do the Soviet Union, China and North Korea as nuclear armed states fit in to this picture? I don't think anyone would doubt their willingness to defend themselves from a nuclear first strike by the United States with retaliation?

And if, you assume these countries aren't "socialist", how would a socialist country defend itself from invasion or aggression?

 

[Kooky]

How do the Soviet Union, China and North Korea as nuclear armed states fit in to this picture? I don't think anyone would doubt their willingness to defend themselves from a nuclear first strike by the United States with retaliation?

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what point you are trying to make here. Yes, countries armed with nuclear weapons (including France, the UK, India, Pakistan, and possibly Israel) would likely defend themselves against a nuclear strike with those weapons. So...?

And if, you assume these countries aren't "socialist", how would a socialist country defend itself from invasion or aggression?

Same as any other country, I would assume? Again, what point are you trying to make here?

 

[Kooky]

You seem to live under a rock.

Because I consider global climate change a very real danger to countless people all across the world?

Perhaps you could think about what I said and try to come up with a substantial response, instead of a witty - though nevertheless vapid - repartee. How about that?

 

[Laika]

Same as any other country, I would assume? Again, what point are you trying to make here?

The way I read what you said (below) was you almost talked like it was impossible to have a nuclear war or for socialists to take a position on it because only capitalism could ever start a war or be involved in one. That just seemed a little out of place, but obviously I was mistaken.

You are working under a false dichotomy; the only country that has used nuclear weapons in the context of international warfare so far, is the vanguard of capitalism. If a conflict went nuclear, it would be conflict within the context of our current system.

.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

It had it's place, but there has to be a better way.

I got about half way through before needing to stop it.

Capitalists care about their workers and the environment.

Without both of these things - there is no capital.

Western society has grown leaps and bounds under capitalism. Even those we consider "poor" by today's standards have access to goods and services that would have made them appear rich only a decade or two ago.

The only way to improve upon the system we have is if God gets involved.

 

[The Hammer]

The only way to improve upon the system we have is if God gets involved.

I don't think you want my Gods involved.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I don't think you want my Gods involved.

I honestly see no need for any God to get involved at this point.

 

[metis]

Capitalists care about their workers and the environment.

Actually, those on the left tend to more environmentally conscious and more pro-worker than those on the right.

Western society has grown leaps and bounds under capitalism. Even those we consider "poor" by today's standards have access to goods and services that would have made them appear rich only a decade or two ago.

And capitalism would likely have self-destructed without the addition of numerous "socialistic" programs, such as Social Security, various welfare programs, public education, etc.