'Million Masks March': Anti-capitalist protesters take to London streets - Polidicks

I love the irony of carrying banners from the socialist worker considering most of of the people there probably aren't either poor or working class.

[QUOTE=The mouse;46423073]I love the irony of carrying banners from the socialist worker considering most of of the people there probably aren't either poor or working class.[/QUOTE] You don't have to be poor or working class to be associate yourself with a political party. Just as you don't need to be a working class/poor person to be socialist or believe socialism is a good ideology. [editline]6th November 2014[/editline] [quote=David Lloyd George]A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart; an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head. [/quote]

I didn't realise people still wore those things unironically

I hate capitalism so much, I am going to engage in capitalism to buy a shitty mask so I can cry like the moron I am.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46423136]You don't have to be poor or working class to be associate yourself with a political party. Just as you don't need to be a working class/poor person to be socialist or believe socialism is a good ideology. [editline]6th November 2014[/editline][/QUOTE] The point was that how can you claim to identify with the working poor when you've never had to deal with any of the same problems as them?

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46423136]You don't have to be poor or working class to be associate yourself with a political party. Just as you don't need to be a working class/poor person to be socialist or believe socialism is a good ideology.[/QUOTE] The Socialist Workers Party isn't a Socialist Workers Party. It's a Student group that sells newspapers.

[QUOTE=Deng;46424002]The Socialist Workers Party isn't a Socialist Workers Party. It's a Student group that sells newspapers.[/QUOTE] Cynical but witty.

Million naked march sounds better for anti-capitalist rather than some schmuck wearing wannabe revolutionist mask

[QUOTE=The mouse;46423863]The point was that how can you claim to identify with the working poor when you've never had to deal with any of the same problems as them?[/QUOTE] Capitalism causes problems for more than the poor. Capitalism (in the form presented to us) requires constant growth, which is unsustainable (economically and environmentally) so every decade there is a recession where nearly everybody suffers.

Honestly for the most part we're pretty good here in England, we have the NHS, benefits and state schools that are of equal/higher quality than private. Of course there are always going to be issues. But we do have socialist elements in our society, for now at least. Still, these people are just protesting for the sake of it, so saying this is pointless.

No system will ever be perfect, but the fact is that almost all of the worlds current successful countries are capitalist says a lot about it.

[QUOTE=Rossy167;46424099]Honestly for the most part we're pretty good here in England, we have the NHS, benefits and state schools that are of equal/higher quality than private. Of course there are always going to be issues. But we do have socialist elements in our society, for now at least. Still, these people are just protesting for the sake of it, so saying this is pointless.[/QUOTE] Remember last winter with energy prices going up with no reasons? Energy companies have no competition so nothing keeps them under control. Remember the "credit crunch" the british people had to pay for mistakes made by greedy bankers. Royal mail, privatised costing the british people billions. Then you could argue the government is undermining education and healthcare (so private will someday look like a better alternative) and/or selling parts off to the private sector. Things are ok but its better to be vigilant before things become not ok.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;46418491]"wahhh we hate capitalism!" "but we still wear guy fawkes masks!" People really need to be more credible with their concepts. If you hate capitalism, fine, hate capitalism! At the very least though, remain true to your words. [editline]5th November 2014[/editline] Also on the live stream, "The guberment is evul!" "That why we are here!" No you are there to be whiny cunts about random and pointless things.[/QUOTE] Pointless things? The government are a bunch of greedy cunts and it needs to stop.

an alternative to capitalism that is greater, more functional and moral than capitalism, is desirable its just that as of right now, we dont have a system like that (well, its probably theorised in some weird, obscure books)

[QUOTE=David29;46424155]No system will ever be perfect, but the fact is that almost all of the worlds current successful countries are capitalist says a lot about it.[/QUOTE] One of the "benefits" of capitalism is it provides a meritocracy where the best, most able, most innovative or intelligent are most successful. So why is social mobility in the UK so low? Capitalism works for small scale stuff but big businesses should be nationalised or regulated by the state, high startup price means competition doesn't truely work with stuff like banks, hospitals, trains, energy. We are successful in that we have decent GDP but at what cost?

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46424185]One of the "benefits" of capitalism is it provides a meritocracy where the best, most able, most innovative or intelligent are most successful. So why is social mobility in the UK so low? Capitalism works for small scale stuff but big businesses should be nationalised or regulated by the state, high startup price means competition doesn't truely work with stuff like banks, hospitals, trains, energy. We are successful in that we have decent GDP but at what cost?[/QUOTE] People have this insane notion that modern western economies are still good examples of capitalistic free markets. Tell me, is there any economic action you can do without running up against some government intervention? If you have issue with the social mobility of the modern economy, then blame the mixed nature of the economy, not just the capitalistic part.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46424185]One of the "benefits" of capitalism is it provides a meritocracy where the best, most able, most innovative or intelligent are most successful. So why is social mobility in the UK so low? Capitalism works for small scale stuff but big businesses should be nationalised or regulated by the state, high startup price means competition doesn't truely work with stuff like banks, hospitals, trains, energy. We are successful in that we have decent GDP but at what cost?[/QUOTE] Have you seen the quality of life index recently? Here: [url]http://nationranking.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/2010-qli-map1.png[/url] This is one thing that gets me about the whole argument: people complain and complain about how bad things are - but they neglect to consider how things are elsewhere in the world. Now, I'm not saying that you can't complain at all - but some people are talking like they expect a utopia.

[QUOTE=sgman91;46424242]People have this insane notion that modern western economies are still good examples of capitalistic free markets. Tell me, is there any economic action you can do without running up against some government intervention? If you have issue with the social mobility of the modern economy, then blame the mixed nature of the economy, not just the capitalistic part.[/QUOTE] I never said it was free market capitalism, not sure where you picked that up from. Social mobility is poor in the US also. My issue isn't with low social mobility it is with capitalism being flaunted as a system to encourage innovation, high social mobility and the flawed concept that competition drives down costs and improves services. [editline]6th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;46424278]Have you seen the quality of life index recently? Here: [url]http://nationranking.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/2010-qli-map1.png[/url] This is one thing that gets me about the whole argument: people complain and complain about how bad things are - but they neglect to consider how things are elsewhere in the world. Now, I'm not saying that you can't complain at all - but some people are talking like they expect a utopia.[/QUOTE] Things are so great here because they are so bad in other places, its not a separate issue it is the same being looked at from different perspectives. I get cheap clothes because some child makes them in india for a pittance and the pollutants are dumped into the river, I get a cheap phone because those resources are available for super cheap because the miners/producers can bypass environmental regulations in poor places. I get cheap food because some black guy in africa can pick my fruit for the price I pay for 1 apple. The whole "things are good here stop complaining" thing is a poor argument and reeks of complacency and doesn't consider the causes of the problems in those countries.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46424285]I never said it was free market capitalism, not sure where you picked that up from.[/QUOTE] So when you say: [QUOTE]My issue... is with capitalism being flaunted as a system to encourage innovation, high social mobility and the flawed concept that competition drives down costs and improves services.[/QUOTE] You aren't talking about free market capitalism? For some reason you seem to blame the capitalistic part of the economy for not driving down costs and improving services instead of the socialist/government interventionist part.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46424062]Capitalism causes problems for more than the poor. Capitalism (in the form presented to us) requires constant growth, which is unsustainable (economically and environmentally) so every decade there is a recession where nearly everybody suffers.[/QUOTE] I agree, but Capitalism is just the least terrible economic system, it may cause problems for many people but that's just the way the world is, some people are always going to suffer. But it is better than full on Socialism which has proven itself to be even more corrupt and cause suffering for almost everyone.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46424285]Things are so great here because they are so bad in other places, its not a separate issue it is the same being looked at from different perspectives.[/QUOTE] So things are working better here... Thus I return to my original point that the most successful countries with the best standard of living are generally capitalist. Attempting to say "x may be better than y, but x is still bad it's just that y is so terrible" is not really a valid argument - especially considering that the QOL Index is measured against all the different needs of a person. You're essentially saying that people (on average) in a country with a high QOL Index score have a bad quality of life despite having their needs generally well met. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46424285]I get cheap clothes because some child makes them in india for a pittance and the pollutants are dumped into the river, I get a cheap phone because those resources are available for super cheap because the miners/producers can bypass environmental regulations in poor places. I get cheap food because some black guy in africa can pick my fruit for the price I pay for 1 apple.[/QUOTE] Where you choose to source your various commodities is your decision. Choosing to buy from a store that sources from China rather than locally is your prerogative. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46424285]The whole "things are good here stop complaining" thing is a poor argument and reeks of complacency and doesn't consider the causes of the problems in those countries.[/QUOTE] Clearly you didn't actually read my post fully because: [QUOTE][b]Now, I'm not saying that you can't complain at all[/b] - but some people are talking like they expect a utopia.[/QUOTE] I hate it when people throw in the 'complacency counter-argument' whenever you challenge their views on capitalism - especially when I went out of my way to point out that you are perfectly entitled to not be complacent - but just be aware of how worse off you could be and that the system is not broke if we mostly have a good quality of life.

[QUOTE=The mouse;46424340]I agree, but Capitalism is just the least terrible economic system, it may cause problems for many people but that's just the way the world is, some people are always going to suffer. But it is better than full on Socialism which has proven itself to be even more corrupt and cause suffering for almost everyone.[/QUOTE] You are right. But capitalism is not sustainable. The pacific gyre exists because it is cheaper and easier to dump waste and take a fine than process it properly. Most water in Bangladesh is undrinkable because its cheaper and easier to dump arsnic in the water than it is to process it out. The amazon rainforest is getting fucked because bla bla bla, the sea in oregon is anoxic from fertilizer because bla bla bla, Desertification in Africa, oil production anywhere, air quality, general pollution, child labour. We can't carry on like we are and capitalism requires us to not only carry on but to go faster and cheaper to sustain growth. Socialism would at least make everyone in the UK have modest living standards and require less, then developing nations can slow down production and focus on self improvement, more efficiency and cleanlinesses. I know you will absolutely disagree with this but I think it is our duty as developed nations to slow it down and let developing nations catch up, we owe it to them from the years of exploitation. [editline]6th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;46424404] Clearly you didn't actually read my post fully because: I hate it when people throw in the 'complacency counter-argument' whenever you challenge their views on capitalism - especially when I went out of my way to point out that you are perfectly entitled to not be complacent - but just be aware of how worse off you could be and that the system is not broke if we mostly have a good quality of life.[/QUOTE] Sorry for using that but you missed the other part. Their condition is poor because ours is so good. They suffer so we benefit, the problem is one and the same.

most appropriate gif [IMG]http://static.tumblr.com/cc070ee585a9933d3a0b99e9e7f705d9/znkawke/Y2fna80xe/tumblr_static_2rbi1bm16b6skkc8swc448oks.gif[/IMG] [editline]6th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Bentham;46422611]How to not be taken seriously 101 1. Wear a mass produced mask sold by a capitalist company who wants to profit from you wanting to protest capitalism.[/QUOTE] it's like Fight Club a film with a anti-commercial message made by multimillionaires, starring multimillionaires

[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46420102]I remember seeing some survey about how people in those nations were happier with the way their countries were going than people in the US or many European countries. China especially.[/QUOTE] Probably because the government will kill them if they say anything bad about it.

If it has a dictator, its not communism. Even if they claim so. I hate how communism is now a dirty word...all it really means is sharing. How have people corrupted sharing...

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46424511]Sorry for using that but you missed the other part. Their condition is poor because ours is so good. They suffer so we benefit, the problem is one and the same.[/QUOTE] This isn't really true though. By objective measurements, pretty much every country has gotten wealthier in the past two centuries. What has changed is inequality, which is vastly larger now than it was in the past. However, the rich countries are not rich because they have exploited the poor ones. The total size of the pie has increased, but almost all of the gains have been in the wealthy countries and relatively few have been for the poorer ones. Of course, this is changing constantly, even today. Bangladesh and Nigeria are two economies that are rapidly developing and modernizing, whereas some countries (such as South Korea) which were developing economies a few decades ago, are now quite wealthy. [QUOTE=KnightSolaire;46426088]If it has a dictator, its not communism. Even if they claim so. I hate how communism is now a dirty word...all it really means is sharing. How have people corrupted sharing...[/QUOTE] You know that there's at least a few communist groups that outright stress the need for a "dictatorship" to oversee the transition from a capitalist to a communist society right?

[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;46420052]Because the alternatives to capitalism are great! Ask Russia and China, their human rights were great during the good ol' communist days![/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The mouse;46424340]I agree, but Capitalism is just the least terrible economic system, it may cause problems for many people but that's just the way the world is, some people are always going to suffer. But it is better than full on Socialism which has proven itself to be even more corrupt and cause suffering for almost everyone.[/QUOTE] Just because the few previous attempts at implementing some form of socialism/communism have led to collapse and unhappiness doesn't mean there's no form of socialism/communism that [I]could[/I] be implemented in a way that serves people better than capitalism. [QUOTE=David29;46424155]No system will ever be perfect, but the fact is that almost all of the worlds current successful countries are capitalist says a lot about it.[/QUOTE] How do you define success? If you do it by economic prosperity, that itself is capitalist.

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;46426329] How do you define success? If you do it by economic prosperity, that itself is capitalist.[/QUOTE] Any that really allows self-criticism. The main difference between capitalist nations and the communist nations is that the former are full of people criticizing capitalism, while the latter tends to imprison critics.

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;46426329]How do you define success? If you do it by economic prosperity, that itself is capitalist.[/QUOTE] GDP plays a part, but also largely - as I previously mentioned - the Quality of Life Index.

Problem people have is, they blame capitalism when the problem is really corporatism. Both are not the same, and without a government to get in the way, corporatism is harder to form. Essentially by over-regulating a market, you harm competition, thus leading to monopolies who can then use their money to influence politicians, etc. These monopolies continue to support these regulations in order to stop competition from forming.