Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Raavi

Capitalism: Past, Present, Future

Recommended Posts

Clem Fandango

The concept of fairness is subjective, emotionally laden and differs greatly from place to place, hell even person to person. You determine yourself what's fair largely based on your personal circumstances, experiences and political inclinations. That doesn't make your view on fairness right.

lmao your whole argument is 'I've been told it's fair my whole life, it must be.'

something that is to be explained and defended, for me it's matter of course.

 

I think it's clear that you can't explain or defend the concept of money.

 

 

 

 

Similarly I wouldn't go in an in-depth discussion about the function of kidneys if we were debating kidney donation.

 

Surely knowing what a kidney is would be relevant? Jesus.

 

 

 

Furthermore just "money" is far too oversimplified when discussing inheritances, an estate tends to consist of more than just stacks of dollar bills. Quite recent example closer to home again, the estate was comprised of more non-liquid assets than liquid assets.

Those assets were purchased with money, and can be sold. It's not relevant at all.

 

 

 

There are such concepts as child benefits in place, and public education is of good quality and affordable.

Actually differences in academic performance between social classes becomes apparent at around age 7. And university isn't free,

 

 

 

You can climb the ladder, with hard work and perseverance.

unless your parents are rich in which case you're off the hook!

 

 

 

Your background doesn't have to dictate your future.

 

Well, yes it does. In reality it almost always does. What would be the point of having a class society if you could pick your own social class? Again, social mobility is almost non-existent and you have not addressed this point.

 

It's like I go up to someone and repeatedly punch them in the face. Then I'm like "well they had the chance to hit me back, not my fault someone already broke his arms."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck
something that is to be explained and defended, for me it's matter of course.

 

I think it's clear that you can't explain or defend the concept of money.

 

I think he can, it's just that you won't accept it.

 

Money is a tool for exchanging your times and services into something that you can use to exchange other people's times and services. Before money, you had to determine the value of your products based on someone elses products. IE: I'll give you 10 cabbages for 1 cow. Which was fine and good when you had small societies and largely non-complex products and services. As society evolved, there needed to be a common medium among everything, so that you could also trade for things when the other person didn't need your goods. Maybe the cow raiser has too many cabbages, so what would you do? You'd go on without a cow. Maybe the doctor had too much salt already, so you'd go on without treatment. Maybe everyone wanted your cabbages, so now suddenly your cabbages are amazingly rare and valuable so you can get far more than other people would get.

 

Enter money. Now your cabbages are worth what's fair to the market, and with that money you can exchange it for services that would otherwise be unavailable to you.

 

Than, in essence, is what money is. A damn fine tool that has served mankind pretty well since time immemorial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

something that is to be explained and defended, for me it's matter of course.

 

I think it's clear that you can't explain or defend the concept of money.

 

I think he can, it's just that you won't accept it.

 

Money is a tool for exchanging your times and services into something that you can use to exchange other people's times and services. Before money, you had to determine the value of your products based on someone elses products. IE: I'll give you 10 cabbages for 1 cow. Which was fine and good when you had small societies and largely non-complex products and services. As society evolved, there needed to be a common medium among everything, so that you could also trade for things when the other person didn't need your goods. Maybe the cow raiser has too many cabbages, so what would you do? You'd go on without a cow. Maybe the doctor had too much salt already, so you'd go on without treatment. Maybe everyone wanted your cabbages, so now suddenly your cabbages are amazingly rare and valuable so you can get far more than other people would get.

 

Enter money. Now your cabbages are worth what's fair to the market, and with that money you can exchange it for services that would otherwise be unavailable to you.

 

Than, in essence, is what money is. A damn fine tool that has served mankind pretty well since time immemorial.

 

My f*cking dad told me this when I was four. I know what currency is.

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

 

something that is to be explained and defended, for me it's matter of course.

 

I think it's clear that you can't explain or defend the concept of money.

 

I think he can, it's just that you won't accept it.

 

Money is a tool for exchanging your times and services into something that you can use to exchange other people's times and services. Before money, you had to determine the value of your products based on someone elses products. IE: I'll give you 10 cabbages for 1 cow. Which was fine and good when you had small societies and largely non-complex products and services. As society evolved, there needed to be a common medium among everything, so that you could also trade for things when the other person didn't need your goods. Maybe the cow raiser has too many cabbages, so what would you do? You'd go on without a cow. Maybe the doctor had too much salt already, so you'd go on without treatment. Maybe everyone wanted your cabbages, so now suddenly your cabbages are amazingly rare and valuable so you can get far more than other people would get.

 

Enter money. Now your cabbages are worth what's fair to the market, and with that money you can exchange it for services that would otherwise be unavailable to you.

 

Than, in essence, is what money is. A damn fine tool that has served mankind pretty well since time immemorial.

 

My f*cking dad told me this when I was four. I know what currency is.

 

 

Well the lesson didn't stick then if you are still confused on the concept of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Well the lesson didn't stick then if you are still confused on the concept of money.

 

I'm not confused on the concept of money. I wasn't asking you to explain the concept of currency to me the way you would a toddler.

 

I'm not sure roads, hospitals, schools, power plants, military equipment and direct political and cultural influence fall under 'good and services.' Buying up a society's vital infrastructure and effectively ruling it isn't the same as me trading you a cock for a hen.

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquilus

 

 

 

You haven't really made much of a point in this thread that hasn't been discussed and proven wrong.

 

 

Oh? Where was I proven wrong?

 

Everything regarding the right to pass inheritance on to other family members. It might be your personal belief but no one's giving hand outs

 

that has nothing to do with fat people. You didn't 'prove me wrong' there either 'it's the American way' lmao

 

 

hey I'm just pointing out where you've proven wrong on the subject of not making a point. You dragged this off topic. I've made my point but apparently you haven't and you really can't make yours. I see you trying the Neo Marxist way to run a country's economy, but jack. It didn't work out for the Russians and it damn sure won't work out for us. Climb the social and business ladder and then come back and judge everyone about the way they spend their money or inherit it. I'll find you know that Raavis just being realistic while your head's in the clouds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

lmao your whole argument is 'I've been told it's fair my whole life, it must be.'

 

Not even with some liberal ripping of things out of context can you arrive at the conclusion from the above. As I already stated, fairness is subjective and one's individual views on fairness are determined by external factors.

 

I think it's clear that you can't explain or defend the concept of money.

 

Since you won't stop yapping on about what really should be general knowledge and I wouldn't want you not know what money is, I'll humour you with an oversimplified explanation. Money is legal tender a medium of exchange, a medium of exchange facilitates the sale/purchase/trade of goods or services between parties, currency is our main medium of exchange. You have different kinds of currencies, commodity backed, fiat. The US dollar pre-abolishing the gold standard is an example of a commodity backed currency, the Euro is an example of fiat currency. The use of a medium of exchange as opposed to a barter system makes for more trade yadidyadia. If you want a comprehensive lesson on economic history, buy a book on economic history or enrol in an online class, some are even free these days. I'm sure you won't have any questions about what money is afterwords.

 

Surely knowing what a kidney is would be relevant? Jesus.

 

It's assumed we both know what a kidney does, we're engaging in a discussion about kidney donation after all. Same goes for money, everyone knows what money is. It is general f*cking knowledge.

 

Those assets were purchased with money, and can be sold. It's not relevant at all.

 

Because liquefying assets is easy-peasy by definition and no hurdle at all. Spoiler alert: it's not.

 

Actually differences in academic performance between social classes becomes apparent at around age 7. And university isn't free,

 

A source would be appreciated. Also I'd argue this has more to do with nature than anything else.

 

Well, yes it does. In reality it almost always does. What would be the point of having a class society if you could pick your own social class? Again, social mobility is almost non-existent and you have not addressed this point.

 

Hard work and perseverance is not picking anything. Hard work and perseverance is rewarded. Once again if I choose to bestow my reward upon my children and/or grandchildren, that's me looking out for them, my business. If you don't, that's your business. Also do bear in mind we're not all equally smart, able. We inherit a whole lot more than just (non)-liquid assets. Even those whom inherit nothing in terms of (non)-liquid assets, inherit their parent's genetics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

ffs. I know what currency is. That went completely over your head. Just answer the following questions

 

- Is road a good or a service? What about a hospital? Both are represented by money. I can buy either.

- Doesn't inheritance of infrastructure constitute a hereditary position of authority? If my dad owns an airport and he dies and passes it on to me, I'm essentially a public official who got his job because his dad had it.

- How is the value of money determined? Is is proportional to the utility of the resources it represents (think: diamonds)?

- How are wages determined under Capitalism? Is it proportional to the utility of the job, or are their other factors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

 

 

A source would be appreciated. Also I'd argue this has more to do with nature than anything else.

 

 

sick appeal to nature bruh

 

 

 

Hard work and perseverance is not picking anything. Hard work and perseverance is rewarded.

I would think the existence of inheritance is more than proof that this notion is a bunch of claptrap.

 

If hard work and perseverance are rewarded, why does the majority of the population live in abject poverty? Are they just not bootsrappin' hard enough? I think they need to suck it up and inherit more money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

Is road a good or a service? What about a hospital? Both are represented by money. I can buy either.

 

You damn well know the difference between goods and services. Hospitals, airports- You’re angling to privatisation of the public sector. What do you want? Want me to explain privatisation to you? You’re barking up the wrong tree if you’re expecting a blanket approval of public sector privatisation. A healthy mix of privatised and public institutions is what works both from an economical and community-output point of view. In case of airports whilst privatisation and deregulation has made air travel a lot more affordable, an ideal situation would be a private-public partnership, maximise efficiency whilst not relinquishing all control and oversight, PPPs or similar agreements.

 

ffs. I know what currency is.

Yet you want to abolish it.

- Doesn't inheritance of infrastructure constitute a hereditary position of authority? If my dad owns an airport and he dies and passes it on to me, I'm essentially a public official who got his job because his dad had it.

 

You make it sound like the airport is owned by an individual ,whilst in reality we're talking mostly private equity firms and similar orginisations whom's bylaws surely inhibit such practices. But by all means provide me with a real world example of dad passing on the airport to his son. I'm curious.

- How is the value of money determined?

- How are wages determined under Capitalism? Is it proportional to the utility of the job, or are their other factors?

 

Jesus f*cking christ. Now you want a lesson in Econ 101? You know at least basic macroeconomics, or at least I hope you do. Me rehashing it isn't going to further the discussion.

 

I would think the existence of inheritance is more than proof that this notion is a bunch of claptrap.

 

You present it as if it’s an either or proposition which it most certainly is not. You can on one hand have inheritance and on the other have hard work rewarded.

 

If hard work and perseverance are rewarded, why does the majority of the population live in abject poverty?

 

“The majority of the population” of… the world? Interesting. In 1990, as good as half of the population in the developing world lived on less than 1.25 a day. That has dropped to 14% in 2015 whilst the working middle class in developing nations tripled. Globally poverty rates have almost halfed in 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

You damn well know the difference between goods and services.

I'm aware of the difference between goods and services. A road is neither. Hence, money is a form of resource control, you act as though it's a citizen's allowance or something. You haven't addressed this point. Do you not understand it, or are you hoping I'll forget about it?

 

You’re angling to privatisation of the public sector.

No, not at all. My point is that infrastructure is privately controlled, like land in the feudal system.

 

You make it sound like the airport is owned by an individual ,whilst in reality we're talking mostly private equity firms and similar orginisations whom's bylaws surely inhibit such practices. But by all means provide me with a real world example of dad passing on the airport to his son. I'm curious.

What about a chain of hotels (like those owned by the Hilton family) or a chain of supermarkets (like those owned by the Walton family)?

 

And you might not be able to own an airport outright, but you could inherit influence in a corporation by inheriting stocks. That essentially makes you an unelected official.

 

Jesus f*cking christ. Now you want a lesson in Econ 101? You know at least basic macroeconomics, or at least I hope you do. Me rehashing it isn't going to further the discussion.

I don't want you to explain anything to me. I know the answers to the questions. Are wages and market prices determined by utility in Capitalism? The answer is no. If I inherit a bunch of diamonds they have zero utility but I can use them to start a mercenary firm. That seems like something that occurs in a rational society?

 

You present it as if it’s an either or proposition which it most certainly is not. You can on one hand have inheritance and on the other have hard work rewarded.

You can't prattle on about hard work and how great it is and how it's actually a great thing the poor get to work hard if they wanna escape their position, but then defend a society where there's been almost no social mobility since after the war, because privilege is inherited. All of that suggests that hard work is never rewarded. The fact that someone from the slums can theoretically become President means nothing at all.

 

Rewarding hard work isn't even the point of the system so it's all whatever. If you thought 'rewarding hard work' was the be all and end all of human relations you'd want a system of non-hereditary social status where nobody has a last name. But you aren't suggesting that. Nobody ever has with a straight face to the best of my knowledge.

 

You can literally defend the worst systems ever with your sh*te logic. You're a Jew in Nazi Germany? Just be of enough utility to the Nazis and it's sweet, it's theoretically possible just like getting rich under Capitalism. You're a suffering peasant in feudal England? That guy's Great Grandfather worked real hard to become Earl, you are you to say what what he should do with his lands?

 

 

“The majority of the population” of… the world? Interesting. In 1990, as good as half of the population in the developing world lived on less than 1.25 a day. That has dropped to 14% in 2015 whilst the working middle class in developing nations tripled. Globally poverty rates have almost halfed in 20 years.

 

 

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf

 

Our wages have gone down the sh*ttier and our remaining services and entitlements are being stripped away piece by piece. And someone working in a sweatshop doesn't care that the rice farms are worse.

 

I want an end to wage slavery, regular slavery, hunger, conflict and state violence. And I want it now. The status quo doesn't offer that no matter how much mental gymnastics you go through. You're defending the indefensible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X S

Melchoir, I would just suggest you draw upon the arguments of Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Adam Smith, who were opponents of inherited wealth. Jefferson dubbed these individuals the pseudo-aristocracy.

 

Although, I don't completely agree with most of these idealistic notions, outside of reasonable tax laws, this was a very real debate and a topic of consideration upon the founding of the United States, which Jefferson claimed was inauspicious to a healthy democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquilus

 

“The majority of the population” of… the world? Interesting. In 1990, as good as half of the population in the developing world lived on less than 1.25 a day. That has dropped to 14% in 2015 whilst the working middle class in developing nations tripled. Globally poverty rates have almost halfed in 20 years.

 

Our wages have gone down the sh*ttier and our remaining services and entitlements are being stripped away piece by piece. And someone working in a sweatshop doesn't care that the rice farms are worse.

 

I want an end to wage slavery, regular slavery, hunger, conflict and state violence. And I want it now. The status quo doesn't offer that no matter how much mental gymnastics you go through. You're defending the indefensible.

 

 

 

You say he's defending the indefensible. But your speaking something that can't be done. You can't end wage slavery, hunger, conflict, or state violence, It is what it is and many people have learned to accept it and get on with their lives. Sure you can do a lot to stop it and lower it but it'll never go away. And the way I see it, wages are fine at what they are. We don't need to raise the minimum wage just to compensate for people who don't even deserve a raise above minimum wage or work jobs less than minimum wage. At whichever rate it'd go up to you'd might as well be killing the government/or local businesses and putting them in a bigger financial crisis then they already are in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

I want an end to wage slavery, regular slavery, hunger, conflict and state violence. And I want it now. The status quo doesn't offer that no matter how much mental gymnastics you go through. You're defending the indefensible.

this is the problem with all these stupid D&D topics lately.

you won't settle for an honest discussion. you keep wanting to drag everything into the abstract.

 

you and the Anarchy crowd come in here to disagree with everyone about everything that doesn't fall squarely into your Rage Against The Machine mantra. and people aren't even necessarily disagreeing with you, at least the half time you and Raavi are talking around the exact same conclusions, but Melchior seems to require total adherence to his theoretical concepts whereas Raavi is willing to work within the boundaries of current reality.

 

trust me broseph, we all want an end to slavery and hunger and violence.

nobody is defending slavery, poverty, or war. you're not being super radical over here. but you're unwilling to call any Spade a Spade. no matter how much you hate the current state of affairs they are the current state of affairs. they're not suddenly going to change "NOW" just because you throw a temper tantrum and say "I WANT IT NOW." that doesn't fix anything and it doesn't take the discussion anywhere. we have to start somewhere in reality.

 

the only mental gymnastics I can see is Melchior attempting to dance his way around answering any of the serious points he's been given.

some jpeg memes over here. some one-liners there. Marvin Gaye song for good measure... this is not how D&D works.

 

the only input coming from Melchior and Co seems to be disagreement. as usual.

no counterpoints or ideas...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Should this, maybe, be incorporated into the anarchy thread? Because removing inheritance under capitalism is the one way to fully ensure a family never rises financially. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
universetwisters

On the topic of inheritance, I got roughly enough to keep my rent & bills paid for nine years, assuming the cost of living doesn't go up. Hypothetically speaking (from both sides of the coin here for contrast), what should I do with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler

Invest it so you can accrue more savings and secure yourself in this precarious system before it inevitably fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

I want an end to wage slavery, regular slavery, hunger, conflict and state violence. And I want it now. The status quo doesn't offer that no matter how much mental gymnastics you go through. You're defending the indefensible.

this is the problem with all these stupid D&D topics lately.

you won't settle for an honest discussion. you keep wanting to drag everything into the abstract.

 

you and the Anarchy crowd come in here to disagree with everyone about everything that doesn't fall squarely into your Rage Against The Machine mantra. and people aren't even necessarily disagreeing with you, at least the half time you and Raavi are talking around the exact same conclusions, but Melchior seems to require total adherence to his theoretical concepts whereas Raavi is willing to work within the boundaries of current reality.

 

trust me broseph, we all want an end to slavery and hunger and violence.

nobody is defending slavery, poverty, or war. you're not being super radical over here. but you're unwilling to call any Spade a Spade. no matter how much you hate the current state of affairs they are the current state of affairs. they're not suddenly going to change "NOW" just because you throw a temper tantrum and say "I WANT IT NOW." that doesn't fix anything and it doesn't take the discussion anywhere. we have to start somewhere in reality.

 

the only mental gymnastics I can see is Melchior attempting to dance his way around answering any of the serious points he's been given.

some jpeg memes over here. some one-liners there. Marvin Gaye song for good measure... this is not how D&D works.

 

the only input coming from Melchior and Co seems to be disagreement. as usual.

no counterpoints or ideas...

 

Sweetie, making peace with the establishment for its own sake isn't mature. I know that's what you've been told over and over again. You don't get points for 'being down to earth' by pretending to live in a democracy when you don't. Being realistic means recognising a broken system in practise, not upholding it for no good reason other than a misplaced sense of maturity.

 

 

 

nobody is defending slavery, poverty, or war.

Oh, but they are. Defending the system of which these things are a feature is defending them. Do liberals have a plan to deal with these things? Because continuing to let corporations and the hostile military establishment grow stronger every year isn't much of a plan.

 

When children are starving you lop off the heads of the people responsible. You don't let them get richer and richer and richer because opposing their power is apparently unrealistic. What would you have me do? Tune into Bill Maher every c*nting night and vote for Labour? Maybe Bernie Sanders will get in, the Capital gains tax will go up .5%, the world will be sorted!

 

 

 

hey're not suddenly going to change "NOW" just because you throw a temper tantrum and say "I WANT IT NOW."

yeah I'm a big baby throwing a temper tantrum over starving children. when will i grow up and realise those kids just need to pull their fingers out?

Edited by Melchior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Every one of us partaking in this conversation are passively guilty of the exploitation of others. Perhaps instead of trying to paint each other witht hicker tar we could discuss the ways we can work to overcome these problems within our own lifetimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

You say he's defending the indefensible. But your speaking something that can't be done. You can't end wage slavery, hunger, conflict, or state violence, It is what it is and many people have learned to accept it and get on with their lives.

People resist injustice everyday, often with success. Illegitimate systems are ephemeral and made of glass. I see no reason to 'accept it and get on with my life' because some greasy teenager from the Midwest told me to.

 

 

 

Sure you can do a lot to stop it and lower it but it'll never go away.

You'll have to try harder to quantify this statement if you want it to be taken seriously. At what point have we made as much progress as possible?

 

 

 

And the way I see it, wages are fine at what they are.

'Wages' are illegitimate anyway, but no they're not fine. Many people don't earn a living wage at all.

 

 

 

At whichever rate it'd go up to you'd might as well be killing the government/or local businesses and putting them in a bigger financial crisis then they already are in.

I'd like to kill the government and/or local businesses, though that has nothing to do with the minimum wage. There are myriad more successful economies than the US with a much higher minimum wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler

Every one of us partaking in this conversation are passively guilty of the exploitation of others. Perhaps instead of trying to paint each other witht hicker tar we could discuss the ways we can work to overcome these problems within our own lifetimes.

 

The problem with discussions like this is that the paradigms are already so different. You concede the point that exploitation is prevalent and need be addressed, but any market capitalist worth their greedy little mittens will either espouse the fact that "greed is good!" or "it's human nature!" or "exploitation helped us get where we are now!" which are all fine and dandy little mechanisms to justify the system rather than address its core issues. The difference here is that everyone talking either considers themselves "realists" and therefore wants to concede any distant dream of lasting change as idealistic, or they're anti-reformist revolutionaries who would rather see people shoot their governors than vote for them. There's no getting around that kind of barrier in a formal debate. This is why you don't have debates with such fundamentally opposing worldviews-- they become more about appealing to the audience with sympathy and familiar rationale, which is already harmful to the cause of anyone other than liberals that maintain status quo values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

 

 

 

 

 

“The majority of the population” of… the world? Interesting. In 1990, as good as half of the population in the developing world lived on less than 1.25 a day. That has dropped to 14% in 2015 whilst the working middle class in developing nations tripled. Globally poverty rates have almost halfed in 20 years.

 

 

Yes, of the world. 80% of the population lives on $10 (or less) a day. Wages have increased in developing countries for a number of reasons, none of them being 'capitalism is totally ethical and fair bruh'.

 

Also, 'working middle class'? Who comes up with this sh*t? Middle class my ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

But exploitation has been addressed in some areas, and continues to be addressed by a part of the capitalists. Slowly companies that treat their employees fairly are becoming better, with a better appeal, than companies that exploit their workers. This would assume that there wouldn't be people that would abuse any anarchic system put into place. Evil and corruption would always find a way. Capitalists at larges, big and small business owners have recognized that. Capitalism IS slowly being reformed, as these things do take time. And it's fine to argue about the flaws of the system, it's the only way to improve. Instead of simply advocating revolution, it would be tons more productive if we could find ways to improve the system we're in, to get to where we want to be. I'm not talking about saving capitalism, saving big business, saving wealth; I'm talking evolving into something better. Human history is all about evolution, and not about suddenly changing life as we know it overnight. Which, sadly, is the only form of discourse and alternative some people tend to see and advocate.

 

Because yeah, capitalism sucks at some things, but has been amazing at many others. We're at a far better point in human history than we could have been otherwise. We can only speculate about what would have happened if anarchists had succeeded nearly a century ago, but it's no guarantee it would have turned out that way. But things would be more productive if we could think of evolving the current system than simply scrapping it off and starting fresh, which is a highly impossible and unrealistic idea in today's world, at least if we wish to mantain some semblance of order and the population alive. Heck, some people simply advocate murdering the rich, which is an insane concept.

 

Life is about evolution. We didn't simply scrap the previous brain we had and switched into being Homo sapiens sapiens. It took time and many tries. If there's any hope of having any sort of anarchic system, or hell something better than that that we haven't imagined yet, it'll be through evolution and a slow "revolution", rather than through bloodshed and day to night changes. But some people simply can't accept that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

Capitalism is premised on exploitation. No amount of reforms will change the fact that, in order for your business to be successful, you have to pay your workers far lower than the value they produce. Higher wages are nice and all, but even then you're still being exploited.

 

Like my boy Richard Aoki said "Capitalism is like a piece of sh*t. You can shape it into a ball, or you can shape it into a square, but no matter how you reform it, it's still a piece of sh*t."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

f*cking lmao. 'workers are earning more' okay well for the bosses to pay them proportionally they'd have to cease to exist.


But exploitation has been addressed in some areas, and continues to be addressed by a part of the capitalists. Slowly companies that treat their employees fairly are becoming better, with a better appeal, than companies that exploit their workers. This would assume that there wouldn't be people that would abuse any anarchic system put into place. Evil and corruption would always find a way. Capitalists at larges, big and small business owners have recognized that. Capitalism IS slowly being reformed, as these things do take time. And it's fine to argue about the flaws of the system, it's the only way to improve. Instead of simply advocating revolution, it would be tons more productive if we could find ways to improve the system we're in, to get to where we want to be. I'm not talking about saving capitalism, saving big business, saving wealth; I'm talking evolving into something better. Human history is all about evolution, and not about suddenly changing life as we know it overnight. Which, sadly, is the only form of discourse and alternative some people tend to see and advocate.

Because yeah, capitalism sucks at some things, but has been amazing at many others. We're at a far better point in human history than we could have been otherwise. We can only speculate about what would have happened if anarchists had succeeded nearly a century ago, but it's no guarantee it would have turned out that way. But things would be more productive if we could think of evolving the current system than simply scrapping it off and starting fresh, which is a highly impossible and unrealistic idea in today's world, at least if we wish to mantain some semblance of order and the population alive. Heck, some people simply advocate murdering the rich, which is an insane concept.

Life is about evolution. We didn't simply scrap the previous brain we had and switched into being Homo sapiens sapiens. It took time and many tries. If there's any hope of having any sort of anarchic system, or hell something better than that that we haven't imagined yet, it'll be through evolution and a slow "revolution", rather than through bloodshed and day to night changes. But some people simply can't accept that.

lol you're Japanese. You have a choice between the neo-imperialists and the Communists. Funny how 'neo-imperial' means 'being Australia's bitch' sounds like old imperialism. I can't understand your love affair with the system.


Nobody wants to upset white people, but nobody gives a f*ck about the Japanese. Enjoy being cannon fodder for our war with China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

I'm going to the Royal Academy, T-chuck. Start sucking up because your life is in my hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

hey man 15 million children die of starvation and malnutrition every year 80% of the population lives on less than $10 a day and the planet will likely be completely uninhabitable in a couple hundred years but hey man were making progress here. by 2025 probably only 14 million children will die of starvation a year we'll round those wages up a bit and everything will just kinda work itself out. yes capitalism is exploitive,unethical and maintained through widespread systemic violence but it's the best system we've got

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Not to nitpick, but wages will only go up slightly relative to inflation. Technically, they'll go down as they've been doing since the 80s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

yeah but human nature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.