Hey guys!!!! I think we need to start doing something:

[Dr_Liszt]

1. Talking.

and

2. Be less boring.

Here, I'll provide the topic: How does a volcano eruption look like with a really cool camera?

I present to you the Fire Volcano from Guatemala.






OK: I have another question: Can capitalism and Imperialism exist without each other? I need to know this so I can write an essay to my friend.

[Derived Absurdity]

I thought you said be less boring.

Anyway I guess it depends on how you define capitalism.

[Dr_Liszt]

I thought you said be less boring.

Anyway I guess it depends on how you define capitalism.

I KNOW!!!! I'm sorry!!! That's why I posted cool picture of volcano! Saw the eruption last Sunday from the highway, it's beautiful!
Anyway,
The book defines it as the economic freedom that brings incentive. It is moral since it brings the incentive to superation and productivity, the more you produce the higher the quality of life. Competition brings lower prices and enhances productivity. And it said something about being in the best interest of everyone not to overpower the market and crash it, because in this scenario we all lose.

But of course the system is rigged, because the poorer don't get richer and the market has crashed numerous times and there has not been a reform on the system, or we haven't "learn" from it since the elite is still the elite, still uses the poor for productivity.

If it's not basic knowledge, the U.S, UK and all the superpowers came into power not because of a good capitalist economic model but through the exploitation to others.

Sorry I had to let it all out. I JUST READ THE MOST AWFUL PRO CAPITALIST BOOK EVER!

[Gendo]

I just made a thread with a logic problem. Nothing is less boring than logic problems.

[Dr_Liszt]

I just made a thread with a logic problem. Nothing is less boring than logic problems.

Isn't one of those problems we resolved ages ago at IMDb.

I forgot how those work. I only know that one the probability passes over to the other door because of math and the other one I don't know.

[Derived Absurdity]

I thought you said be less boring.

Anyway I guess it depends on how you define capitalism.

I KNOW!!!! I'm sorry!!! That's why I posted cool picture of volcano! Saw the eruption last Sunday from the highway, it's beautiful!

Lol... the picture was what I was referring to.

Anyway your book sucks and is stupid and should probably be burned. No one except ideologues defines capitalism that way. I don't know how to parse your original question, really - seems to me that capitalism can technically exist without imperialism, even though in practice the two always go together, and imperialism can in principle exist without capitalism, althought capitalism exists as a very good motivator. Capitalism certainly can't exist without exploitation, as that's built into it. Dunno if that's the answer you want.

[Dr_Liszt]

Capitalism certainly can't exist without exploitation, as that's built into it.

The book says that is socialist blatter. It basically says "Capitalism provides what the worker produces." Meaning that is the most just system, but it is far from perfect, so instead of limiting capitalism we should perfect it.

It also said that socialists like to point out the poverty that exists in abundance, not knowing that when the richer get richer, the poorer will get less poor because of economic growth.

So I do think that capitalism, if you take away the Fed, Wall Street and all the components that have rigged the system, and if you remove unfairness of competition, could in theory be a good system where anyone can grow and be "a source of wealth". But it's basically the imperialist policies and monopolies that have put limitations on it.

I'm not sure if what I'm saying is correct. I guess my question is.. is what I'm saying correct?

[Derived Absurdity]

Capitalism certainly can't exist without exploitation, as that's built into it.

The book says that is socialist blatter.

Well, it's half right.

It basically says "Capitalism provides what the worker produces."

Yeah, to the capitalist. The capitalist owns everything the worker produces and in return the capitalist gives the worker a wage. The capitalist also owns the means of production. Nothing the worker produces is his or her own. On a broader scale the worker can buy whatever the capitalist (in reality all the employees) made by becoming a consumer, but nothing about that system is fair or equitable or "free". A system which actually provides what the worker produces would be a system in which the worker controls the means of production and owns the result of his or her labor... you know, socialism.

Meaning that is the most just system, but it is far from perfect, so instead of limiting capitalism we should perfect it.

You perfect it by turning it socialist. There is nothing about capitalism that is just.

It also said that socialists like to point out the poverty that exists in abundance, not knowing that when the richer get richer, the poorer will get less poor because of economic growth.

lolololololol

So I do think that capitalism, if you take away the Fed, Wall Street and all the components that have rigged the system, and if you remove unfairness of competition, could in theory be a good system where anyone can grow and be "a source of wealth". But it's basically the imperialist policies and monopolies that have put limitations on it.

I'm not sure if what I'm saying is correct. I guess my question is.. is what I'm saying correct?

Not really. Capitalism is exploitative at its core. I suppose you could argue that it might be a good system if you define it ridiculously broadly, like "free trade" or "the free market" (as its defenders usually do, as they seem to realize the current system of wage labor capitalism cannot possibly be defended on any humane grounds), but knowing human incentives such a system will never be fair for very long. It would be radically unsustainable. (And even a perfect platonic system of "free trade" would still be bound by relationships of domination and exploitation.) No, capitalism is an abomination and it needs to be scrapped entirely.

[sikax]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China

[Islandmur]

we will keep on being boring as long as we don't have more people over here.

[Cassius Clay]

I think I vaguely remember MLK saying something about how it's not necessarily the economic/social system that's the problem. But that power will eventually infiltrate any system and use it for it's own nefarious interests. That even capitalism was useful system for challenging power at some point/context. And that we just need to keep switching/coming up with new systems to challenge power...or something like that.

[Dr_Liszt]

I think I vaguely remember MLK saying something about how it's not necessarily the economic/social system that's the problem. But that power will eventually infiltrate any system and use it for it's own nefarious interests. That even capitalism was useful system for challenging power at some point/context. And that we just need to keep switching/coming up with new systems to challenge power...or something like that.

I can agree with that.

What we have to consider is that all of those economic theories were written around 100 years ago or so, in a context where the capital was still at a national level. If you look at the world now, national capital no longer exists. It's the reason why there aren't many wars nowadays, the only wars that exist today is just to reinforce the foreign policies, in other words, imperialist campaigns and their consequences. Empires hardly fight each other anymore, otherwise the E.U and U.S would have declared war on Russia for aiding the pro-russians in Ukraine. But they won't do it. Why? Because now a days the capital is at a corporate level. A war between the E.U and Russia will mean the loss of corporations that have investments in both sides. So whatever theory we have or support now, doesn't deal with the new situation we have now.

Maybe we need a world-scale revolution?

[Derived Absurdity]

Sorry, you guys aren't radical enough for me.

[Gendo]

Sorry, you guys aren't radical enough for me.

[BruceSmith78]

[Dr_Liszt]

Capitalism certainly can't exist without exploitation, as that's built into it.

The book says that is socialist blatter.

Well, it's half right.

It basically says "Capitalism provides what the worker produces."

Yeah, to the capitalist. The capitalist owns everything the worker produces and in return the capitalist gives the worker a wage. The capitalist also owns the means of production. Nothing the worker produces is his or her own. On a broader scale the worker can buy whatever the capitalist (in reality all the employees) made by becoming a consumer, but nothing about that system is fair or equitable or "free". A system which actually provides what the worker produces would be a system in which the worker controls the means of production and owns the result of his or her labor... you know, socialism.

Meaning that is the most just system, but it is far from perfect, so instead of limiting capitalism we should perfect it.

You perfect it by turning it socialist. There is nothing about capitalism that is just.

It also said that socialists like to point out the poverty that exists in abundance, not knowing that when the richer get richer, the poorer will get less poor because of economic growth.

lolololololol

So I do think that capitalism, if you take away the Fed, Wall Street and all the components that have rigged the system, and if you remove unfairness of competition, could in theory be a good system where anyone can grow and be "a source of wealth". But it's basically the imperialist policies and monopolies that have put limitations on it.

I'm not sure if what I'm saying is correct. I guess my question is.. is what I'm saying correct?

Not really. Capitalism is exploitative at its core. I suppose you could argue that it might be a good system if you define it ridiculously broadly, like "free trade" or "the free market" (as its defenders usually do, as they seem to realize the current system of wage labor capitalism cannot possibly be defended on any humane grounds), but knowing human incentives such a system will never be fair for very long. It would be radically unsustainable. (And even a perfect platonic system of "free trade" would still be bound by relationships of domination and exploitation.) No, capitalism is an abomination and it needs to be scrapped entirely.

Ok... I need your thoughts on this.
As you know, over here 80% of the fertile land is owned by a few families. Under capitalism this puts people under disadvantage making them unfit for competition. Wouldn't an Agrarian Reform be a way to equalize this? And isn't the Agrarian Reform a violation of private property?

I am in favor of the Agrarian Reform but it does enter in conflict with the right of private property. So in a way it's using the state to take away a basic right. Nationalization of the means of production is socialism? right?

[Derived Absurdity]

Well, I don't really know very much about that, honestly... based on the little I know I would probably be in favor of something like that, but my opinion on that is probably not worth much. As you can probably guess I'm against the very concept of private property as it's inherently coercive and produces unjust hierarchies by its nature. But a reform would be using the state to take away something that only exists due to the state in the first place. It might have beneficial consequences in the short-term if it's implemented benevolently but I'm against something like that in principle.

Nationalization of the means of production is socialism? right?

State socialism, which is communism. Not for me. I haven't narrowed down my politics real well - I'm more concerned with what I'm against than what I'm for right now - but I'm more sympathetic to libertarian socialism.

[Dr_Liszt]

Yeah... I'm like that too. I only know that socialism is very similar to what I believe. But I do believe private property should be respected.
And I don't know about libertarian socialism, most libertarians I know are really capitalist dogs who don't know anything. I do think that education and health should be a guarantee for every citizen but I also believe in a free market.

I only know all these theories get smashed by imperialism anyway, so why bother?

Anyway, the essay looks very socialist, I tried to make it as subtle as I could, the girl I wrote this for is pro-military, she grew up in a military compound. So I hope this doesn't get me in any trouble.

[Derived Absurdity]

You might be confusing private property with simple possession, which is something virtually everyone does. Private property is a state-protected monopoly of certain privileges which can be used to control or exploit others. Possession is just ownership of things. I'm all for possession.

Libertarian socialism has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism as modern Americans understand it. At all. They're essentially the polar opposite of each other. The type of libertarians I think you're referring to, anarcho-capitalists, are advocates of total, complete, absolute tyranny. A form of tyranny far worse and more unaccountable than any other type that has ever existed. Libertarian socialists are basically anarchists and anarchists... don't want that.

Yeah, imperalism sucks, yo. There's not really much you can do, though, besides, like, kill everyone. Human nature, what can you do.

There isn't any contradiction between socialism and militarism, many socialist countries have strong militaries. But yeah, in general 'round here pro-military = pro-America = pro-capitalism, so... good luck.

[Dr_Liszt]

You might be confusing private property with simple possession, which is something virtually everyone does. Private property is a state-protected monopoly of certain privileges which can be used to control or exploit others. Possession is just ownership of things. I'm all for possession.

Libertarian socialism has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism as modern Americans understand it. At all. They're essentially the polar opposite of each other. The type of libertarians I think you're referring to, anarcho-capitalists, are advocates of total, complete, absolute tyranny. A form of tyranny far worse and more unaccountable than any other type that has ever existed. Libertarian socialists are basically anarchists and anarchists... don't want that.

Yeah, imperalism sucks, yo. There's not really much you can do, though, besides, like, kill everyone. Human nature, what can you do.

There isn't any contradiction between socialism and militarism, many socialist countries have strong militaries. But yeah, in general 'round here pro-military = pro-America = pro-capitalism, so... good luck.

Yeah... I can agree with getting rid of the state as the state itself IS a monopoly. And you know the state will always impose itself on the population and all that jazz.

I'm of the idea that the state should function as a insurance company that should cover all the basic needs if one can not pay them. But many anarchists I've met will argue that taxation is violence and that the state itself is unlawful and all that stuff anarchists say.

[Dr_Liszt]

many socialist countries have strong militaries.

May I ask, what do you mean by socialist countries? Which countries are socialist?

[Derived Absurdity]

? China, Cuba, Vietnam, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, etc. Maybe Germany. Defined broadly enough those countries are mostly socialist.

[Dr_Liszt]

I'd argue that China, Denmark and Sweden are capitalist countries with China and Sweden being imperialists. Norway can go fuck itself in the arse.
Cuba and Vietnam are the most socialist of the group. Cuba's socialism was succesful due the blockade, now that it's gone I wonder what is going to happen.

I'd put Germany on the capitalist and imperialist side too.

EDIT: Although I do understand what you mean. But for example China and Sweden, they go around saying how socialist and equal they are when China is one of the most exploitative of labor ever and Sweden's capital comes mostly from private corporations, although the redistribution of that wealth is what might qualify them as socialist. Now add imperialism to that and you'll see why they are so successful.

[Derived Absurdity]

I won't really argue any of that. Especially the European countries, calling some of them socialist is really kind of stretching it. I really don't know much about Cuba's blockade, I've tried to educate myself about it a while back but it's one of those things where I'm pretty sure every single thing I'm reading about it is propaganda of one sort or another, and it's really too time-consuming and frustrating for me to try to sift through it all. So I don't know much about it.

[Dr_Liszt]

Cuba basically is like every other Latin American country except the quality of life for the poor is better due the more approachable access of health and education. So it's not really that good, but compared to a lot of countries from the region, is quite successful. Like for example they managed to erradicate child malnourishment and the streets are generally safer, but they are denied certain luxuries and freedoms. Like for example soap is a luxury. So it would be quite a scary place to live in. But you will be well fed and educated.