Is Capitalism/Globalism really all that bad? - General

This comes from a former FP Marxist. The way I see it, capitalism has directly seen the creation of the world's most important tech. globalism has aided in the spread of culture and brought everybody closer together and made the world a smaller place. I contend that globalism, while it has its faults, is an overall positive force in the world.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;46299222]globalism has aided in the spread of culture and brought everybody closer together and made the world a smaller place.[/QUOTE] This is a bad thing. The problem that many people don't want to acknowledge is that most cultures are [i]not[/i] compatible. The world being a smaller place means there's just less to do, less to discover. Why would I want other countries to spread their cultures to mine? Mine is mine and theirs is theirs - neither is inferior and neither is superior. They're just different, and that's the way it should be.

[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;46299297]This is a bad thing. The problem that many people don't want to acknowledge is that most cultures are [i]not[/i] compatible. The world being a smaller place means there's just less to do, less to discover. Why would I want other countries to spread their cultures to mine? Mine is mine and theirs is theirs - neither is inferior and neither is superior. They're just different, and that's the way it should be.[/QUOTE] Appreciating all cultures and all forms of art and loving all regardless of who they are will always benefit humanity more than what we have going on now. We don't all have to be the same to be united.

[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;46299297]Mine is mine and theirs is theirs - neither is inferior and neither is superior. They're just different, and that's the way it should be.[/QUOTE] Is this not appreciation and understanding? I specifically stated that none were superior to the other. I do believe that we should appreciate other cultures but it is not imperative that we assimilate them into our own.

[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;46299350]Is this not appreciation and understanding? I specifically stated that none were superior to the other. I do believe that we should appreciate other cultures but it is not imperative that we assimilate them into our own.[/QUOTE] We don't have to assimilate but globalization definitely promotes better understanding of different cultures and how they function in their societies.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;46299222]This comes from a former FP Marxist. The way I see it, capitalism has directly seen the creation of the world's most important tech. globalism has aided in the spread of culture and brought everybody closer together and made the world a smaller place. I contend that globalism, while it has its faults, is an overall positive force in the world.[/QUOTE] Do they have to be lumped together? I don't see what capitalism has to do with globalism at all. [editline]23rd October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=maximizer39v2;46299297] Why would I want other countries to spread their cultures to mine? Mine is mine and theirs is theirs - [U]neither is inferior and neither is superior.[/U] They're just different, and that's the way it should be.[/QUOTE] Yyyeaaahhh, I'm gunna go out on a limb and say that is 100% incorrect. I would consider the "West's" culture superior to the middle easts culture. (Unless you promote rape of woman, children, stoning of homosexuals and adulterers and the general acceptance of violence as a way to access heaven.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;46299222]This comes from a former FP Marxist. The way I see it, capitalism has directly seen the creation of the world's most important tech. globalism has aided in the spread of culture and brought everybody closer together and made the world a smaller place. I contend that globalism, while it has its faults, is an overall positive force in the world.[/QUOTE] As Dewm has said, 'capitalism' and 'globalism' (I assume you mean globalisation?) aren't the same concepts so I don't see why you've put them together. You can have a world full of states with market economies without that world being globalised - simplest explanation is if every state was protectionist or otherwise incompatible with each other. Globalisation has its ups and downs I think, like it does help us connect together but it also correlates with the homogeneity of culture world wide which can erode the heritage of some peoples for the benefit of others. The market economy (leaning towards the 'capitalist' side), from someone who studies business and commerce at university, is the best thing we have but it's not perfect. It is the most efficient at resource allocation (it is the most responsive to changes in what is demanded through means such as price signals and (abnormal) economic profits, and on top of that it is generally the most effective at bringing resource use per unit of output to its lowest through competition in the market), unfortunately no participant in an economy is rational especially not on the macroeconomic level, hence why we have things like the great depression and the global financial crisis from time to time. Social and moral obligations are not guaranteed unless there is an economic incentive to do so. Yes, corporate social responsibility is a concept that exists and is employed in lots of firms today, but arguably CSR is another way to market the firm ('every time you buy from us we plant another tree and take another kid in Africa out of poverty! So buy from us!').

Capitalism needs to be regulated. I don't find the one-world state with one culture and language bad but i really don't like that it might be English

[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;46333805]I don't find the one-world state with one culture and language bad but i really don't like that it might be English[/QUOTE] Why not?

Is there any evidence showing that a free market promotes a global homogenous culture or government? And if so, how are we sure that it would be a bad thing? Is there anyway someone can show me the supposed "degeneration" that economic and social freedom causes? Until I get an answer all I can do is support the notion that the alternatives to capitalism are far worse than any of its apparent side-effects. It doesn't take a genius to note that throughout history, and even now, those who try and thwart peoples' freedom and close off their societies end up causing the most suffering. [IMG]http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/citylab/legacy/2012/12/18/north%20korea%20satellite%20nasa%20lights%20OLD.JPG[/IMG] North and South Korea as seen from space during the night. One is capitalistic and one of the freest nations in the world, the other denies capitalism and the freedom of its citizens, shutting itself out.

Capitalism creates wealth and technological advancement for SOME people at the expense of others. The industrialized nations which emerged in a position of dominance at the end of World War Two for example are markedly more wealthy, both in gross GDP and in GDP per capita than the rest of the world. Not coincidentally, resources and cheap labor are almost universally extracted from those poorer countries, and their governments are often less democratic than western powers. This could be called circumstance and a situation 'in development' if it hadn't been engineered intentionally by decades of U.S, European, and Soviet foreign policy. Whenever a government acted against global Capitalism by nationalizing an industry, refusing to join them militarily, or engaging in social acts they found disagreeable, military forces or intelligence agencies were used to overthrow or destroy governments, even democratic ones, in the name of maintaining regional hegemony and control over resources. Capitalism hasn't really CREATED any value in society, in so much as it's leaders (Capitalists and the Politicians which protect them) have taken the PROFIT that the workers produced and utilized a good portion of it on things of no value to you or I, namely wars, machinations of control, etc. The remainder they give back to them in the form of wages, which they also tightfistedly control; only deigning to give more if social unrest makes it more profitable than suppressing the workers. Workers and their labor create value, the exchange of those goods is what constitutes a market. The actual body of 'Capitalism' and what distinguishes it from earlier Merchantilism or a later non-capitalistic system of exchange is in itself valueless, more of a parasite which concentrates the surpluses and wealth created and holds it ransom with a monopoly on force. Look at that night-time map. Notice one other critical thing about it. In addition to focusing on two of the worlds most developed nations (Japan, S.Korea), you fail to qualify how light represents development. In those barely illuminated parts of rural china the quality of life is no doubt incredibly different than the barely illuminated parts of say, Japan. Electricity, or any one commodity of life, is no measure of success or human fulfillment. I mean, even Detroit has electricity. The quality of life constitutes far more than simple material gratification. The ability to pursue one's desired field of living, the ability to act with agency and without coercion or fear in one's day to day life. It would be foolish to argue China is not a capitalist nation; it produces most of the worlds goods and sells them on the open market, allowing foreign companies to invest in and operate inside of it. And yet protests for democracy remain suppressed, yet those in rural villages remain crushingly poor, and yet nets must be put up in factories to stop the workers from killing themselves. It was the same in Europe and America until the economists and social controllers found it a safer concept to export them abroad and bribe their populaces with a portion of the profits. I won't contest that the opportunity given to an individual to engage in his own labor is sometimes catered to in capitalism, but it is usually never given the same rights, legal status, and social importance as someone who utilized wage labor, exploits their workers, and extracts resources from undeveloped nations at gain. Nobody other than the wealthy, their political supporters, and those who socially benefit or are complicit with those groups have anything to gain from Capitalism.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;46335353]Capitalism creates wealth and technological advancement for SOME people at the expense of others. The industrialized nations which emerged in a position of dominance at the end of World War Two for example are markedly more wealthy, both in gross GDP and in GDP per capita than the rest of the world.[/quote] Yet is it not the case that both gross and per capita GDP has grown for the poorest nations since? It's impossible to say that it's zero-sum because total world GDP has grown and although much of it is in the west, the rest of the world has grown in addition. [quote]Capitalism hasn't really CREATED any value in society, in so much as it's leaders (Capitalists and the Politicians which protect them) have taken the PROFIT that the workers produced and utilized a good portion of it on things of no value to you or I, namely wars, machinations of control, etc.[/quote] This again is not true. When capitalism really got going in the early modern period, it often began with merchants distributing resources to rural farmers to convert into manufactured goods during spare time, this was an additional source of income. After this, it was moved into factories, but the base of the system was the creation and distribution of things people demanded (furniture, pottery, food, tools, textiles, etc) Once such a system is in place, you have the start of a market economy, the first step towards wealth, the start of a feminist movement (the birth of capitalism is concurrent with women having their own sources of income for the first time and the freedom thus entailed). [quote]The remainder they give back to them in the form of wages, which they also tightfistedly control; only deigning to give more if social unrest makes it more profitable than suppressing the workers.[/quote] This again is not really the case. Wage increases tend to be driven by market demand and not from social unrest. Starting in medieval Western Europe or medieval China, workers began to travel from place to place looking for higher wages, while landlords and merchants would try to attract labour by increasing wages. It is telling that when laws were passed to suppress wage increases, it was the enterprising landowners who flouted them. [quote]Workers and their labor create value, the exchange of those goods is what constitutes a market.[/quote] Value is dependent upon what people demand. Work in of itself possesses no value to anybody unless there is a demand for it. A market is the system of allocating goods and services, usually through pricing mechanisms (like a vast decentralized computer). [quote]Look at that night-time map. Notice one other critical thing about it. In addition to focusing on two of the worlds most developed nations (Japan, S.Korea), you fail to qualify how light represents development. In those barely illuminated parts of rural china the quality of life is no doubt incredibly different than the barely illuminated parts of say, Japan. Electricity, or any one commodity of life, is no measure of success or human fulfillment. I mean, even Detroit has electricity.[/quote] It's more of a visual reminder of how terrible North Korea is. Their infrastructure is crumbling, the ration system collapsed years ago, state industries are defunct, and standards of living are horrendous. Not to mention numerous human rights abuses. [quote]It would be foolish to argue China is not a capitalist nation; it produces most of the worlds goods and sells them on the open market, allowing foreign companies to invest in and operate inside of it. And yet protests for democracy remain suppressed.[/quote] This is not a problem of capitalism, but for Chinas crushingly long history of authoritarianism. The regime itself is digging its own grave through these economic reforms, and it won't be long before the Communist party is forced to reform or fall in a revolution. [quote]Yet those in rural villages remain crushingly poor, and yet nets must be put up in factories to stop the workers from killing themselves. It was the same in Europe and America until the economists and social controllers found it a safer concept to export them abroad and bribe their populaces with a portion of the profits.[/quote] These things stopped happening in the west by the early 20th century. People became wealthier and demanded safety regulations and better working conditions. The industrialization of countries like China, South Korea, etc didn't really start until the late 20th century, when the west had already achieved high standards of living for their populations. [quote]Nobody other than the wealthy, their political supporters, and those who socially benefit or are complicit with those groups have anything to gain from Capitalism.[/QUOTE] Quite the contrary, even the poor female textile workers of Bangladesh find much to benefit from capitalism. Before the development of these industries, they would work on a farm and have 5 or 6 children and be tied to a man. Now they have 2 children, their own independent source of money, they can provide a better start for their children, they have opportunity. There are still numerous problems, but it is continually improving. For desperately poor people in the third world, it is an incredibly empowering thing to be able to make money and choose what you can do with it, especially for women, as that is usually the first step in feminist movements.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;46335353]Capitalism creates wealth and technological advancement for SOME people at the expense of others. The industrialized nations which emerged in a position of dominance at the end of World War Two for example are markedly more wealthy, both in gross GDP and in GDP per capita than the rest of the world. Not coincidentally, resources and cheap labor are almost universally extracted from those poorer countries, and their governments are often less democratic than western powers. This could be called circumstance and a situation 'in development' if it hadn't been engineered intentionally by decades of U.S, European, and Soviet foreign policy. Whenever a government acted against global Capitalism by nationalizing an industry, refusing to join them militarily, or engaging in social acts they found disagreeable, military forces or intelligence agencies were used to overthrow or destroy governments, even democratic ones, in the name of maintaining regional hegemony and control over resources. Capitalism hasn't really CREATED any value in society, in so much as it's leaders (Capitalists and the Politicians which protect them) have taken the PROFIT that the workers produced and utilized a good portion of it on things of no value to you or I, namely wars, machinations of control, etc. The remainder they give back to them in the form of wages, which they also tightfistedly control; only deigning to give more if social unrest makes it more profitable than suppressing the workers. Workers and their labor create value, the exchange of those goods is what constitutes a market. The actual body of 'Capitalism' and what distinguishes it from earlier Merchantilism or a later non-capitalistic system of exchange is in itself valueless, more of a parasite which concentrates the surpluses and wealth created and holds it ransom with a monopoly on force. Look at that night-time map. Notice one other critical thing about it. In addition to focusing on two of the worlds most developed nations (Japan, S.Korea), you fail to qualify how light represents development. In those barely illuminated parts of rural china the quality of life is no doubt incredibly different than the barely illuminated parts of say, Japan. Electricity, or any one commodity of life, is no measure of success or human fulfillment. I mean, even Detroit has electricity. The quality of life constitutes far more than simple material gratification. The ability to pursue one's desired field of living, the ability to act with agency and without coercion or fear in one's day to day life. It would be foolish to argue China is not a capitalist nation; it produces most of the worlds goods and sells them on the open market, allowing foreign companies to invest in and operate inside of it. And yet protests for democracy remain suppressed, yet those in rural villages remain crushingly poor, and yet nets must be put up in factories to stop the workers from killing themselves. It was the same in Europe and America until the economists and social controllers found it a safer concept to export them abroad and bribe their populaces with a portion of the profits. I won't contest that the opportunity given to an individual to engage in his own labor is sometimes catered to in capitalism, but it is usually never given the same rights, legal status, and social importance as someone who utilized wage labor, exploits their workers, and extracts resources from undeveloped nations at gain. Nobody other than the wealthy, their political supporters, and those who socially benefit or are complicit with those groups have anything to gain from Capitalism.[/QUOTE] I would very much like to see evidence that, as you claim, war and intrigue fueled by western nations in lesser developed states is, in fact, orchestrated to engineer poverty in those nations, rather than dethroning dictators, insurgencies, etc. Or at least an example where one of these nations was doing something good for its citizens, yet suffered due to this western-capitalist conspiracy. But indeed it comes down to the fundemental argument that capitalism is, in fact, bad for this world. There is evidence to the contrary, and it's presented by one of my favorite educational organizations, LearnLiberty. Here are some videos in regards to arguments you bring up (hope it suffices for me not being an economist myself!) I would encourage anyone to watch a few lectures yourself, even if it is to just digest the thinking of those with different opinions than you. [video=youtube;o5gEceNyp0M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5gEceNyp0M[/video]

[QUOTE=Deng;46335969]Yet is it not the case that both gross and per capita GDP has grown for the poorest nations since? It's impossible to say that it's zero-sum because total world GDP has grown and although much of it is in the west, the rest of the world has grown in addition.[/quote] It's the inequality and intense concentration of that growth that is worrying. Their wages have perhaps grown from several decades ago, but it's important to also account that these are often nations getting back on their feet from centuries of colonial exploitation and Cold-War era conflict. The poor living in slums and working in farms and factories across the world bear an inordinate burden of the world's labor and see virtually none of it's fruits. [quote]This again is not true. When capitalism really got going in the early modern period, it often began with merchants distributing resources to rural farmers to convert into manufactured goods during spare time, this was an additional source of income. After this, it was moved into factories, but the base of the system was the creation and distribution of things people demanded (furniture, pottery, food, tools, textiles, etc) Once such a system is in place, you have the start of a market economy, the first step towards wealth, the start of a feminist movement (the birth of capitalism is concurrent with women having their own sources of income for the first time and the freedom thus entailed). [/quote] As for the early development of the capitalist economy, this also brought with it the enclosure of commonly held lands, the forced movement of farmers into slum conditions in cities, and the suppression of the labor movement which sought to negotiate working conditions. The fact that factories produce goods people need is not an excuse for the conditions they created for the laborer and the environment. As for the feminist argument I'm not sure how one can ignore such disasters as the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, itself a consequence of profit-hungry management locking the doors of a factory. Reforms in work conditions and women's enfranchisement didn't come about because the employers and politicians felt it was 'more efficient' or 'better', it came about largely by socialist and anarchist agitation AGAINST the often conservative corporate and political interests. The United States is one of the exceptions perhaps, with many feminists being socially conservative, but even they had police and economic sanctions taken against them. Hardly a causal link to be made between capitalism and woman or worker's liberation, quite the opposite in fact. Hell, international woman's day was founded by communists and first held by a socialist party. [quote]This again is not really the case. Wage increases tend to be driven by market demand and not from social unrest. Starting in medieval Western Europe or medieval China, workers began to travel from place to place looking for higher wages, while landlords and merchants would try to attract labour by increasing wages. It is telling that when laws were passed to suppress wage increases, it was the enterprising landowners who flouted them.[/quote] It's erroneous to argue that wage increases were voluntary on behalf of the employer. Worker demonstrations for higher wages and better treatment were often put down by company hired private soldiers and detectives, as well as the governments and armies of the nations involved. To argue that the bait which enticed the landless and jobless farmers into the cities represents a beneficial and voluntary exchange is just wrong. [quote]Value is dependent upon what people demand. Work in of itself possesses no value to anybody unless there is a demand for it. A market is the system of allocating goods and services, usually through pricing mechanisms (like a vast decentralized computer).[/quote] This is just a fundamental disagreement on the basis of value. Marx explains it better than I do. Look up Labor Theory of Value. [quote]It's more of a visual reminder of how terrible North Korea is. Their infrastructure is crumbling, the ration system collapsed years ago, state industries are defunct, and standards of living are horrendous. Not to mention numerous human rights abuses.[/quote] Agreed. North Korea is terrible. Arguing that a nation that isn't capitalist is bad, isn't an argument that capitalism is good. If your implication is against Leftist economic systems, I would argue that they in no way represent Marxist theory or any of it's derivatives. Juche is it's own fucked up affair, vaguely based on Maoism. Quite a few degrees of separation. [quote]This is not a problem of capitalism, but for Chinas crushingly long history of authoritarianism. The regime itself is digging its own grave through these economic reforms, and it won't be long before the Communist party is forced to reform or fall in a revolution.[/quote] Again, these are social pressures. Further evidencing my point that internal resistance is what effects change. If there is a revolution it will doubtlessly be challenged as much by the capitalists of China as the government. Money always sides with authority, in so far as authority doesn't threaten it's hold on wealth. [quote]These things stopped happening in the west by the early 20th century. People became wealthier and demanded safety regulations and better working conditions. The industrialization of countries like China, South Korea, etc didn't really start until the late 20th century, when the west had already achieved high standards of living for their populations.[/quote] Yet in much of the developing world there is little to no safety regulation. The governments of those nations have a vested interest in keeping it that way, as often their trade with foreign developed nations is judged in utility based on how cheaply the resources and goods are extracted. Free trade agreements that prevent nationalization of industries perfectly represent that. [quote]Quite the contrary, even the poor female textile workers of Bangladesh find much to benefit from capitalism. Before the development of these industries, they would work on a farm and have 5 or 6 children and be tied to a man. Now they have 2 children, their own independent source of money, they can provide a better start for their children, they have opportunity. There are still numerous problems, but it is continually improving. For desperately poor people in the third world, it is an incredibly empowering thing to be able to make money and choose what you can do with it, especially for women, as that is usually the first step in feminist movements.[/QUOTE] You have a very specific idea of what is in the best interest of women and those in poverty. The possession of a farm, or the ownership of cottage industries is the former system of economy in these countries. They were torn away from these involuntarily during the colonial period, and their participation in the modern industrial system of labor is hardly ideal. Making Nike shoes for pennies to the dollar might net them a 'higher wage', but it is not a labor they control, it isn't benefiting their community, but shipping profits abroad to vast multinational corporations. It's patronizing to argue that they have been 'lifted' from some kind of benighted state by the involvement of foreign markets. They often only benefit from government socialist projects or private charity, which is rarely sufficient. I find it odd you refer so frequently to woman's liberation when discussing capitalism, as woman still are paid significantly less than men in most places in the world, and are often exploited in capitalism far more than in 'traditional' forms of economy. As for your question about foreign involvement StickyWicket, I point you to the plethora of US. involvements in South America, Africa, and Asia. Simple research into the intent of the CIA funded overthrow of democratically elected leaders like Salvador Allende in Chile, or Patrice Lumumba in The Congo tells you exactly what the intent, both political and economic of the capitalist West has been historically. Today is no different.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;46336776]It's the inequality and intense concentration of that growth that is worrying. Their wages have perhaps grown from several decades ago, but it's important to also account that these are often nations getting back on their feet from centuries of colonial exploitation and Cold-War era conflict. The poor living in slums and working in farms and factories across the world bear an inordinate burden of the world's labor and see virtually none of it's fruits.[/quote] This is true, yet wages are rising in many developing countries. The largest reductions in poverty in human history have been achieved in the past few decades. [quote]As for the early development of the capitalist economy, this also brought with it the enclosure of commonly held lands, the forced movement of farmers into slum conditions in cities, and the suppression of the labor movement which sought to negotiate working conditions. The fact that factories produce goods people need is not an excuse for the conditions they created for the laborer and the environment.[/quote] The methods of enclosure, forced relocations, etc is not unique to capitalism, but were commonly practiced long before that. What's unique in human history is that safety regulations, improved working conditions, etc actually got better, and that these improvements have only been seen in the past two centuries. [quote]As for the feminist argument I'm not sure how one can ignore such disasters as the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, itself a consequence of profit-hungry management locking the doors of a factory. Reforms in work conditions and women's enfranchisement didn't come about because the employers and politicians felt it was 'more efficient' or 'better', it came about largely by socialist and anarchist agitation AGAINST the often conservative corporate and political interests.[/quote] Workers organizing is responsible for quite a few of them, but it is in equal measure to the reforms and measures of business owners. [quote]Hardly a causal link to be made between capitalism and woman or worker's liberation, quite the opposite in fact.[/quote] Societies in which women are barred from creating and owning their own wealth are usually ones in which feminism is the weakest. [quote]It's erroneous to argue that wage increases were voluntary on behalf of the employer. Worker demonstrations for higher wages and better treatment were often put down by company hired private soldiers and detectives, as well as the governments and armies of the nations involved. To argue that the bait which enticed the landless and jobless farmers into the cities represents a beneficial and voluntary exchange is just wrong.[/quote] The point is that market pressure, government regulation, and workers organizing are all responsible. [quote]This is just a fundamental disagreement on the basis of value. Marx explains it better than I do. Look up Labor Theory of Value.[/quote] The labour theory of value is psuedoscience. [quote]Again, these are social pressures. Further evidencing my point that internal resistance is what effects change. If there is a revolution it will doubtlessly be challenged as much by the capitalists of China as the government. Money always sides with authority, in so far as authority doesn't threaten it's hold on wealth.[/quote] Not necessarily. Business owners in China frequently run into trouble with the government. If you are in the party, it's fine, but if you happened to independent of the party, you will quickly make enemies. Huang Guangyu being an obvious example. [quote]Yet in much of the developing world there is little to no safety regulation. The governments of those nations have a vested interest in keeping it that way, as often their trade with foreign developed nations is judged in utility based on how cheaply the resources and goods are extracted. Free trade agreements that prevent nationalization of industries perfectly represent that.[/quote] Safety regulations are introduced over time, usually as workers become wealthier and they escape poverty, then they begin to demand better working conditions as they have the time to campaign, organize themselves, or move to a factory with better conditions. It's an ongoing process, and one that has already started in countries such as China, whereas the older asian tigers (which half a century ago were practically agrarian economies) now have both developed economies and good working conditions. [quote]You have a very specific idea of what is in the best interest of women and those in poverty. The possession of a farm, or the ownership of cottage industries is the former system of economy in these countries.[/quote] Actually for the majority of human history, most people never really owned their farm or land. It was often rented or utilized in some form of agreement with the actual owner who then demanded services in goods, monies, or services. To own your own land is in itself a huge advantage, but most of the time these people never had the opportunity. Many tenanted farmers or those who did own land, in the end were often crippled by a bad harvest or war. Small farmers continued going to the wall once their lords enclosed their fields at different points in history. [quote]I find it odd you refer so frequently to woman's liberation when discussing capitalism, as woman still are paid significantly less than men in most places in the world, and are often exploited in capitalism far more than in 'traditional' forms of economy.[/QUOTE] It is because the engagement of women in a market economy is often the first step towards the establishment of feminist movements in a country. The most important reforms give women the right to own property, make and keep their own income, to choose what they can do with it, and most importantly, one that recognizes them as individual autonomous beings that are treated the same as men in legal disputes. Once you have that, the rest follows without question. The initial problem is making it known in these countries that women are not an extension of her fathers or husbands possessions, and an independent source of income is an extremely powerful and liberating thing that leads on to greater things. I'm not saying that there's no place for welfare, for workers rights, for good working conditions, for wealth redistribution, etc because these are all necessary things for the functioning of a modern society, and that unregulated business does not work. The other important point however to consider, is that the market economy is just as much a bedrock to society as I have listed above, and it is insane to suggest that one can operate for long without the other.

Well, Capitalism is important to an extend, Once Profit become more valuable than life itself, you have gone too far. Capitalism and every other doctrine are good in a world where there is no such thing as exaggeration. If we were capable to stay modest, there wouldn't have any conflict related to anything really.... Every system we have invented had good intention behind them, they failed because we are dumb and want power.

[QUOTE=StickyWicket;46334142] North and South Korea as seen from space during the night. One is capitalistic and one of the freest nations in the world, the other denies capitalism and the freedom of its citizens, shutting itself out.[/QUOTE] It's not the lack of capitalism that's responsable for NK's attitude towards its people. By this definition (Capitalism= an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.) I'd like to argue that some wealthy countries with high standards of living do not have too powerful of a private sector, or if they do, it's heavily taxed. If you're familiar with the economics of Europe, you could relate to what I've said. You'll find [B]plenty[/B] of state-owned companies, or state-endorsed companies ruling over the commanding heights of the economy, in areas like energy&distribution, rail transport, IT&com, cars, ports, etc. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-owned_corporation#Europe"]Here is a list of some important ones, like OMV, DB, MOL,Volkswagen, Statoil; but that just scratches the surface.[/URL] It's not just Europe, US allows for a handfull of internet distribution companies to monopolize the market for example, and does not allow competition in that sector. Not exactly the definition of capitalism [I]per se[/I]. And then you have the likes of Singapore, UAE, Saudi Arabia. Look into their economies and you'll get the ideea that capitalism comes in stronger or more diluted essences depending on the country. Human rights or freedom are not a prerequisite to economic growth.Authoritarian China has been growing at a reasonably big pace. That being said, I'm in favor of either the Nordic way in regards to capitalism, or the full blown(more or less) American capitalism. The first allows for a safety net for everyone in the society in case you fuck up and get homeless or jobless, allows for quality& free vital services like healthcare& edu but the authority of the state is also felt more potently in people's lifes; while the other allows for total freedom in almost any regards, much bigger competition,very low taxation, but with a [B]very strict[/B] law code and law enforcement to prevent a freedom overflow wich can degenerate into extremism. Either of those 2 have their ups and downs; and as I've said, I find both of them equally interesting. [I]As for globalisation[/I], well, I couldn't care less about orthodox, conservative, traditional ways of living wich are advocated in opposition to globalisation. The only way to go is forward, and if culture will suffer because of it, then so be it. Bring the melting pot.

[QUOTE=maximizer39v2;46299297]This is a bad thing. The problem that many people don't want to acknowledge is that most cultures are [i]not[/i] compatible. The world being a smaller place means there's just less to do, less to discover. Why would I want other countries to spread their cultures to mine? Mine is mine and theirs is theirs - neither is inferior and neither is superior. They're just different, and that's the way it should be.[/QUOTE] Totally agree with this. This is why multi-cultrialism does not work when taking foreign cultures which are not western and mixing it with islamic cultures. This has caused so many issues over the last 70 years with the west effecting\invading\getting involved in the middle east and now the west feels the need to take on-board millions of immigrants which don't integrate but segregate the country and maintain their own culture creating a community void thats very unhealthy for the country and is leading to destabilization. One cannot respect anothers culture if their culture is under threat.

[QUOTE=Killergam;46699940]Totally agree with this. This is why multi-cultrialism does not work when taking foreign cultures which are not western and mixing it with islamic cultures. This has caused so many issues over the last 70 years with the west effecting\invading\getting involved in the middle east and now the west feels the need to take on-board millions of immigrants which don't integrate but segregate the country and maintain their own culture creating a community void thats very unhealthy for the country and is leading to destabilization. One cannot respect anothers culture if their culture is under threat.[/QUOTE] The only arguments I hear about how "cultures are incompatible" never really talk about any cultures other than Islam. Nobody's talking about Koreans, Indians, Africans, Latinos, Russians, Irish, or Japanese people. When people talk about this line of rhetoric, I notice they're normally both European and are really talking about muslims. Living in the US, I've never experienced cultural incompatibility with muslims. A LOT of my friends are muslim since my area has a high population of Pakistani people. I talk religion with them (rarely; I hate talking about things like religion), and they totally accept that I'm not religious in any way, and that's never been a problem to them. I know Muslims who have assimilated to America in different ways: I know a girl who was in an arranged marriage immediately after highschool, and all the way to the other side of the spectrum, I know a girl who smokes weed and has sex and doesn't wear a Hijab and drinks and listens to punk rock. Both Pakistani, both muslim, both are really nice to me regardless of what my religious or cultural views are. I think things are different in europe, but I don't buy the rhetoric about anti-multiculturalism; I think it's just a veiled and almost PC form of Islamophobia, which I don't even see here in [i]The US[/i].

Pretty much anything ending in 'ism' is a distraction from reality, which people label themselves with in order to pick a side against the others. This is all great entertainment for those at the top of society that don't care about all that and just backstab their way to the top of the pile.

Hey OP, if you are a Marxist then you would recognize that, yes, Capitalism has done some amazing things. One of Marx's chief arguements was that society could not simply jump from feudalism to communism because it needed the economic growth and technological development that capitalism brings. Communism for Marx was an inevitability. So, is capitalism good? To an extent. I think Marx was overly optimistic about its never decline, that being said - I think an exclusive focus on margins doesn't always generate wealth that trickles down.

Man just look at the world right now, of course it sucks.

Capitalism is the abuse of the worker, and globalism is the spread of this. World communication is great and that is not globalism. Glocalism is the answer, local productivity, and international communication.

[QUOTE=mushroompizza;46788582]Capitalism is the abuse of the worker, and globalism is the spread of this.[/QUOTE] This is not really true. Capitalism just means a system in which capital goods (land, machinery, etc) can be privately owned. Abuse or exploitation of the worker is not the definition, or a prerequisite for capitalism. Globalism meanwhile does not have anything to necessarily do with capitalism, but refers to how the world today is increasingly integrating various peoples, cultures, markets, telecommunications systems, etc.

it gave us the ford model t assembly line

Everyone has dreamed of a society where all our needs are provided for by robotics and automation so that they can pursue their interests instead of going to work. However, this planet is run by humans. The largest ones float to the top of the tank and accumulate their wealth. I'm an idealist. Ideally, those capitalists that work their way up to the top would run out of ideas to spend their money on and use it to help others. However, the reality is, that once the global megacorporations have automated away most people's jobs, they won't have a further use for the humans that aren't skilled enough to operate the remaining machines and will simply wish to dispose of them, or allow nature to take its course. This is why they go on about overpopulation. They don't want to support the world's taxi drivers once their jobs have been replaced with self-driving Uber-like taxi ranks. (for example). Happy Christmas.

I feel like capitalism has achieved a lot but that the way we engage with each other socially and economically should continue to move forward and evolve. Artificial scarcity seems like something we should begin to eliminate and radical individualism and neoliberalism have done their fair share of damage.

One thing that worries me about capitalism is it's dependency on resources such as gold which are rare on Earth, but plentiful in space either on planets or asteroids because what will happen if we ever start to mine asteroids and finding larger amounts of gold, silver, diamonds, and ETC resulting in their value being diminished which also means that people's money becomes worthless as well since it represents how much "gold" they have to their names which also means nobody would be able to afford anything resulting in a complete collapse of the global economy if it retains it's current form. Another worry of mine is automation because what happens when we replace all the world's workers with machines and as a result, remove those workers' source of incomes meaning they can't afford to buy the products that the machines that replaced them are building which also affects the income of the people who are in charge because they can't make a profit if nobody can buy their products because they lost their jobs to the machines that they replaced them with to make their production more efficient. There is eventually going have to be a point in time we're gonna have to retire capitalism and move onto something else.

[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;46819012]One thing that worries me about capitalism is it's dependency on resources such as gold which are rare on Earth, but plentiful in space either on planets or asteroids because what will happen if we ever start to mine asteroids and finding larger amounts of gold, silver, diamonds, and ETC resulting in their value being diminished which also means that people's money becomes worthless as well since it represents how much "gold" they have to their names which also means nobody would be able to afford anything resulting in a complete collapse of the global economy if it retains it's current form. Another worry of mine is automation because what happens when we replace all the world's workers with machines and as a result, remove those workers' source of incomes meaning they can't afford to buy the products that the machines that replaced them are building which also affects the income of the people who are in charge because they can't make a profit if nobody can buy their products because they lost their jobs to the machines that they replaced them with to make their production more efficient. There is eventually going have to be a point in time we're gonna have to retire capitalism and move onto something else.[/QUOTE] To your first point, most currencies today (including those such as AUD and USD) are 'fiat money', that is they are not pegged to a commodity such as gold (which is why how much gold you can buy with how many dollars is variable). No one who holds money automatically has 'gold' to their name; gold is just a separate asset. And even if we did get to the stage of mining other planets or asteroids for such commodities, that wouldn't be for hundreds of years so it's hardly an argument for today. And then to your second, automation and mechanisation are happening, yes, but the economy can re-calibrate. Pretty much most developed nations have shifted or are shifting from manufacturing economies to service economies (eg tertiary industries growing while primary and secondary are in decline), where automation isn't impossible but nonetheless harder. But also over time we have gradually been working less. Late nineteenth century you would probably be working sunrise to sunset, six or seven days per week. Still like that in some developing countries. Now you'll probably at the most work forty hours per week. There's been an increasing trend in recent years towards part-time and casual work, and I don't think it would be too far-fetched to say that these will become the norms, and soon the forty hour week will be no longer. Pay will need to adjust upwards to reduce underemployment, but the capacity would still be there to hire more people, not less.

Some people are allowed to grow freely through life, while others are being systematically held back PURPOSEFULLY by the education, prisons, and just being penned in dangerous lives you know? Just look at South Central L.A. everybody wants to play the class game but we live in a city where theres racial gang violence and, people smoking drugs in the same house as they're fucking kids... man don't get me started.