Venezuela jails 100 bourgeois capitalist parasites in crackdown on price-gouging - Polidicks

[QUOTE=thisispain;42887309]uh capitalism has nothing to do with effort. 0 to 100 effort makes no difference in "advantages". capitalism is entirely unconcerned with that, which is the principle criticism socialists make of it.[/QUOTE] It's got a lot to do with effort, just not as much as it should.

I think capitalism is here to stay. Everybody has been predicting its collapse for the best part of two centuries, and multiple states, organizations, and individuals have tried their best to eradicate it. For some curious reason, it kept returning time and again, whilst all of the attempts at creating communist or anarchist societies have more or less been failures. As more time goes on, I can hardly see a future for states like Venezuela. Maybe in the far future there will be something new and similar to what socialists want, but it's definitely not going to be like what they envision tbh.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;42887371]What is your personal experience with capitalism and how has it disadvantaged you personally? Not saying that capitalism is infallible (it isn't), but I'm just wondering out of curiosity and for perspective.[/QUOTE] to go to school to learn to do something that interested me, i was put into $30,000 of debt to get a job that would probably pay $30,000/year(this was stressed after i signed the dotted line, though). i have never been in a unionized job, and even a hint of union talk could get me fired. i am mostly a seasonal worker. i am used for a month or two by a corporation as they have need of me(and make minimum wage), thrown out at the end of the season to find a new corporation to use my. it's almost a transient work lifestyle. my town is very destitute and the only real full time jobs are at big box retail(something i have no interest in pursuing) or at a lumber company(who doesn't take people with such low experience and skills as me). i have at least 2 judgements levied against me last i checked, debt that is partially accrued from my own actions but also partially accrued because i had the audacity to go to a doctor because my foot was broken. i am subject to a life where i feel i have no economic future, no economic power, and will always subsist through manual labor provided in 2 month strings. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;42887430]I think capitalism is here to stay. Everybody has been predicting its collapse for the best part of two centuries, and multiple states, organizations, and individuals have tried their best to eradicate it. For some curious reason, it kept returning time and again, whilst all of the attempts at creating communist or anarchist societies have more or less been failures. As more time goes on, I can hardly see a future for states like Venezuela. Maybe in the far future there will be something new and similar to what socialists want, but it's definitely not going to be like what they envision tbh.[/QUOTE] i have a feeling you might have been saying the same thing about feudalism in the 1400s.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;42887318]Please elaborate.[/QUOTE] that's as clear as it gets. capitalism is about accumulation of capital by private enterprise for profit. its disadvantageous to minorities because it allows for there to be such a thing as a minority, IE the workers who work for private enterprise. socialists believe that capitalism is superior to all previous forms of economic systems, but its primary failure is ignoring the plight of the minority worker. this is what all that proletariat business is about. the goal of socialism in its most simple is to have an economic system that favours the wellbeing of the minority worker instead of profit. [editline]16th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mingebox;42887425]It's got a lot to do with effort, just not as much as it should.[/QUOTE] effort doesnt exist in economics. do you mean labour?

[QUOTE=Mingebox;42887425]It's got a lot to do with effort, just not as much as it should.[/QUOTE] market socialism, as an alternative, is completely based on value put out by workers. participatory economics(a libertarian socialist ideology) is completely based around payment for the effort put into a particular task. so there are alternatives to capitalism that would be more based on merit than capitalism.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42887453]to go to school to learn to do something that interested me, i was put into $30,000 of debt to get a job that would probably pay $30,000/year(this was stressed after i signed the dotted line, though). i have never been in a unionized job, and even a hint of union talk could get me fired. i am mostly a seasonal worker. i am used for a month or two by a corporation as they have need of me(and make minimum wage), thrown out at the end of the season to find a new corporation to use my. it's almost a transient work lifestyle. my town is very destitute and the only real full time jobs are at big box retail(something i have no interest in pursuing) or at a lumber company(who doesn't take people with such low experience and skills as me). i have at least 2 judgements levied against me last i checked, debt that is partially accrued from my own actions but also partially accrued because i had the audacity to go to a doctor because my foot was broken. i am subject to a life where i feel i have no economic future, no economic power, and will always subsist through manual labor provided in 2 month strings. [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] i have a feeling you might have been saying the same thing about feudalism in the 1400s.[/QUOTE] The difference there is that Fuedalism does collapse or rot away. In most of Europe, it lasted a few centuries at most, and economic, social, and military change was largely behind the decline of feudalism as an institution. It's not like it was unique to Europe either, Japan underwent similar changes in the 18th and 19th centuries, where the old landowning class gradually decayed as bankers, merchants, farmers, and the growing literate and urban classes gradually blurred the lines between social castes. And another note about feudalism, is that alternate societies existed quite happily in the midst of Kings and Emperors, such as the various small cities and towns scattered all over Europe with varying degrees of democratic rule and self autonomy along with profit making merchants and landowners. (Hanseatic League, Venice, Almafi, Genoa, Florence, San Marino, etc). Some of these societies even lasted into the modern era.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42887430]I think capitalism is here to stay. Everybody has been predicting its collapse for the best part of two centuries, and multiple states, organizations, and individuals have tried their best to eradicate it. For some curious reason, it kept returning time and again, whilst all of the attempts at creating communist or anarchist societies have more or less been failures. As more time goes on, I can hardly see a future for states like Venezuela. Maybe in the far future there will be something new and similar to what socialists want, but it's definitely not going to be like what they envision tbh.[/QUOTE] well i mean if i was going to be orthodox marxist id say that "creating" a communist state is impossible. Marx himself said that capitalism is the most ideal state for socialism, he was fiercely anti-utopian. the idea is that eventually as we become more capitalist we will reach a state in society where we become socialist and lead to a communist society where there is no class or state and all resources are distributed based on need and what is produced. we can see this happen in the extremely prosperous nations of the EU, where the societies are going towards the left, become both more free and more equal.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42887523]The difference there is that Fuedalism does collapse or rot away. In most of Europe, it lasted a few centuries at most, and economic, social, and military change was largely behind the decline of feudalism as an institution. [/QUOTE] and why do you think it's impossible for capitalism to rot away? capitalism as we generally think of it has barely been around a century and capitalism as an ideology hasn't been around much longer than that.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42887542]and why do you think it's impossible for capitalism to rot away? capitalism as we generally think of it has barely been around a century and capitalism as an ideology hasn't been around much longer than that.[/QUOTE] It's too soon to tell.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42887542]and why do you think it's impossible for capitalism to rot away? capitalism as we generally think of it has barely been around a century and capitalism as an ideology hasn't been around much longer than that.[/QUOTE] I don't see capitalism so as ideology so much as a natural answer to the needs of much larger, interconnected societies that have much more diverse and specialized needs and wants.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;42887664]I don't see capitalism so as ideology so much as a natural answer to the needs of much larger, interconnected societies that have much more diverse and specialized needs and wants.[/QUOTE] i see communism in the same light. it doesn't stop either being ideologies.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42887697]i see communism in the same light. it doesn't stop either being ideologies.[/QUOTE] Natural answer as in something that evolved organically.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;42887736]Natural answer as in something that evolved organically.[/QUOTE] i think communism will come about through somewhat organic means.

DainBramage if you are reading this kindly neck yourself, you fuckwit. tia.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;42883447]I just realized the thread title wasn't meant as satire.[/QUOTE] It actually was, but then arguments.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42887196]in order for people to be egalitarian you have to admit that they actually are equal.[/QUOTE] One of the worst parts of the ideology. People are not equal.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42898333]People are not equal.[/QUOTE] Blacks and whites are not equal?

Are you going to pull the same tired bullshit of a genetic hierarchy like Dain rangergxi because please dont

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42898344]Blacks and whites are not equal?[/QUOTE] Blind people and deaf people are equal?

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42898360]Blind people and deaf people are equal?[/QUOTE] so black and white people are so far removed from one another that they each represent a different disability?

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42898344]Blacks and whites are not equal?[/QUOTE] Not talking about race or even groups. All individuals are different in ability and work ethic, etc.

resellers are already out in the street selling the appliances they bought for 90% off...

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42898435]Not talking about race or even groups. All individuals are different in ability and work ethic, etc.[/QUOTE] that isn't what egalitarian means ... of course people are individuals.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42898435]Not talking about race or even groups. All individuals are different in ability and work ethic, etc.[/QUOTE] so they are not equals and should not interact with each other as equals? [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] who should have dominion over who, then? should the farmer subjugate the doctor or should the doctor subjugate the farmer?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42900417]so they are not equals and should not interact with each other as equals? [editline]18th November 2013[/editline] who should have dominion over who, then? should the farmer subjugate the doctor or should the doctor subjugate the farmer?[/QUOTE] Why does an inequality in ability, or even just interest, inherently lead to subjugation? You seem to be pulling quite a few false dualities with your so called reasoning. Different does not inherently mean inferior or superior. That is a pretty elementary case of correlation not implying causation. Sure, a doctor is probably "superior" to a farmer based on some vague non specified metrics if you SERIOUSLY wanted to get into the realm of nit picking. His work requires significantly more training, and raw ability. Therefore it is safe to assume that he is usually going to be a more mentally adept, or at least driven individual. Society in it's current state generally rewards that ability and/or dedication. Yet at the same time the two individuals are equal in their rights. They can vote, have children freely, own property (funnily enough the farmer in this case probably owns significantly more, albeit probably less expensive per acre), and voice opinions. I don't know of any medical doctors serving as direct overlords to farmers unless you count laws determining quality and safety of food (to which I'd laugh at). Nor am I aware of farmers commanding doctors. Are you arguing that a doctor who spends more than a decade training to become a medical specialist does not deserve a higher wage than someone flipping burgers or performing any other menial job that requires next to zero training or ability? Are you denying that individuals have different interests, different inherent abilities, and different training? Because that seems like what you are trying to say, and I have to say, that is an incredibly naive view to take as a premise for any economic theory. People are different in countless ways. If you want to shoehorn everyone into some homogeneous box for the sake of your ideology, you can expect to be laughed at. Humans don't work that way, and history is becoming littered with examples (many of which have been brought up in this thread) showing exactly how. Socialism used as a tool to augment capitalism (as has been discussed) seems to work pretty damn well for most of Europe. However you seem to be proposing absolute equality without defining how you would get there. What are you going to do? Kill anyone who is either smarter or dumber than you are? What if someone of your intelligence is better or worse than you at literally anything? Or are some unspecified differences not important, while other unspecified differences important? There are so many holes I don't even know where to begin poking. Every question that slips into my mind is tied to several others.You seem to genuinely believe that you have some divine right to violently subjugate everyone in the name of your ideals. I don't know if you are just naively optimistic or outright delusional.

wait so where did i say any of that? i am saying that people are equal...as in they should be able to freely associate with each other and have relationships/agreements that are based around the idea that neither person is a subject of the other. i am not saying that everyone is the same, i am saying everyone is equal.

And they aren't currently able to? The way you brought it up seems to imply that you think that.

no they aren't. patriarchy, racial oppression, capitalism, statism, etc. all of these things imply inequality between people. a woman doesn't have the rights of men, a black doesn't have the rights of whites, a worker doesn't have the rights of a boss, a citizen doesn't have the rights of a cop or politician. these create relationships of ruler/ruled.

Your examples are terrible then. Using an example of professions when you want to be talking about racism is a ridiculous non sequitur. Clearly define what you are talking about. You cannot expect anyone to follow your train of thought if your examples are barely related to what you are trying to say in an abstract sense.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;42901440]Your examples are terrible then. Using an example of professions when you want to be talking about racism is a ridiculous non sequitur. Clearly define what you are talking about. You cannot expect anyone to follow your train of thought if your examples are barely related to what you are trying to say in an abstract sense.[/QUOTE] i didn't bring up professions.