| Blogs > thrawn2112 |
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
So, what are your thoughts? Capitalism, good/bad? Reasons why? Is it worth removing in favor of a more regulated system where wealth is distributed more evenly at the cost of such regulations? If something I said is factually incorrect and you are POSITIVE that you know the correct information please correct me. edit: lol spelling   | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
Allowing individuals to own and operate the means to production for the purpose of earning personal wealth. The capitalism that people have a problem with is the socialist-hybrid where banks privatize their gains and collectivize the losses. There is a limit to how much the average worker is going to put up with seeing his hard work being literally stolen by people who are not only better at the market game, but are actively rigging it in their favor. Meanwhile they have so much money that they club any attempt to hinder their ridiculous position to death with an army of lawyers that earn 10x what you can earn when working for the government. People aren't sick with the idea of being able to start their own business, they are sick and tired of seeing their hard work be destroyed by 30-yeard old yuppies that couldn't contribute to the economy in a positive fashion if their life depended on it. Meanwhile those people will never see the inside of a jail whilst tons of people lost their homes over this shit. Capitalism just gets ingrained with bankers. They stole the world blind and not a soul went to jail for it. Meanwhile it is the average person that ends up paying for the screw up, and just a few years after, the bankers are hauling giant bonusses. People have trouble accepting that someone can live so big on the profits of others, literally being too big to fail too big to go to jail. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On July 21 2012 16:36 thrawn2112 wrote: so you would agree with what i said about how people are placing blame on capitalism when the blame should be placed on greed and the strong involvement of the government in the economy? and in your opinion are those good enough reasons to condemn capitalism, because humans have proven too immoral for the freedoms of capitalism? I think that it is hard to deny that an economy that is run from the bottom-up is superior to one that is dictated by the government. It promotes risk taking and innovation, both of which are crucial if you want to outperform other companies. The problem isn't greed, that is putting it too simple. It sells well in papers because people recognize it is a sin, but in reality the problem is far greater, and the rot runs deeper. The problem is that we have a class of super rich bankers which not only add nothing to the economy, but they are in fact detrimental to the economy. There is a need for someone to bring together the people that need money and the people that want to put their money up for investment. Despite what some may say, the banking sector does serve a purpose, but I don't remember anyone ever asking for all these idiotic economical constructs that they are selling. These creations are not only too complex for the average person to understand, they are so complex and obscure that nobody has a clue what is in them. Then you get rigging where the people trusted to inspect these things are giving false ratings to rake in more money themselves. The entire industry is just corrupt from top to bottom. Any industry that is that corrupt would crumble, and eventually it did. Ooh, surprise, turns out we are so integrated into the world economy that you are going to have to pay for our fuckups. People haven't proven to be too immoral for the freedom of capitalism. The banking sector is a poluted industry filled with people that promote this insane culture where they are actively seeking to rig the game in any way possible. Is the guy down the road that owns a pizza shop too immoral for capitalism? No, he never did anything wrong, but it is him that is paying for this shit whilst the people on wall street are holding their hands up for their yearly bonus. There is too much money flowing through that industry for it to become anything other than corrupt. The solution is simply holding these people responsible. Start throwing people in jail for life. If you rob a bank you get 20 years, so why doesn't the banker that robs a million people have to see the inside of a cell? I'd even support death penalties for the leading people that were responsible for that whole subprime mortgage mess. But what do they get? Right now they are sitting in a house that the average person couldn't even rent for a month if he worked his whole life. They are riding high and what are they adding to the economy? Why are they earning so much money whilst being a drain on the economy? No, capitalism isn't the problem. The entire banking sector needs to be garroted and bled out. It's the bankers that are giving capitalism a bad name. It should be made obvious that such corruption has nothing to do with capitalism, but people only see that money reigns and these criminals are literally untouchable by the law. The government should act against it before capitalism, the best system, loses too much face. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
People don't understand that the 1% will take and take. The trickle down is a lie. Mainstream media distract you with the false choice of electing 2 groups of the same politicians.. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On July 21 2012 16:27 zalz wrote: Allowing individuals to own and operate the means to production for the purpose of earning personal wealth. . isn't that the definition of socialism? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
| ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On July 21 2012 17:14 Blazinghand wrote: The proletariat is docile and refuses to rise up... the 99% movement shall seize the means of production as the vanguard of the revolution... change is coming and with it the withering-away of the police industrofinancialmilitary state. People don't understand that the 1% will take and take. The trickle down is a lie. Mainstream media distract you with the false choice of electing 2 groups of the same politicians.. The proles will never revolt. Isn't that the definition of socialism? No. Socialism is just redistributing the wealth from rich to poor, believing that that is either economically wise, or morally demanded. The degree to which this is done can vary, though on average the goal is not to destroy the rich class, only to make life easier for those who have least. Socialism and capitalism are not, despite what people sometimes claim, on directly opposing ends of the spectrum. It is perfectly possible to have a capitalist/socialist society, like Sweden (and really most of the Scandinavian region). Socialism stands directly oppossed to laissez faire capitalism, but not ordinary capitalism. Communism, which abolishes private property, is not compatible with capitalism. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On July 21 2012 17:36 zalz wrote: The proles will never revolt. No. Socialism is just redistributing the wealth from rich to poor, believing that that is either economically wise, or morally demanded. The degree to which this is done can vary, though on average the goal is not to destroy the rich class, only to make life easier for those who have least. Socialism and capitalism are not, despite what people sometimes claim, on directly opposing ends of the spectrum. It is perfectly possible to have a capitalist/socialist society, like Sweden (and really most of the Scandinavian region). Socialism stands directly oppossed to laissez faire capitalism, but not ordinary capitalism. Communism, which abolishes private property, is not compatible with capitalism. Well I took my definition from Noam Chomsky among others, but I guess we can all just move around the definition in whatever way we like, just how we do with conservatism and liberalism. I'm not really sure what would be the best way to pin down one definition of a political ideology. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
As long as capitalism is properly regulated so that the individuals at the bottom are reasonably protected, I think it's good. It promotes growth and rewards ambition and progress. I don't think that balance has been hit right now, however. | ||
|
BreakfastBurrito
United States893 Posts
in 1797, 1857, 1929, and just a few years ago, debt, speculation, and lending have caused some serious problems. | ||
|
Vivax
21972 Posts
Then the option for private banks to create money through debt. Money creation should be task of a national institution imo, not a right for private organizations. These are just a few reasons ofc. But I think that solving them, especially point 1, would fix a lot of things. But the implementation of point 1 needs a pretty hardcore form of socialism providing enough subsidies for it to work, since you don't produce these goods to compete on the global market, but to satisfy an individuals' interests within a nation.# Just imagine if you buy one cell phone at your national high-tech-store, and it gets repaired throughout your whole life, for really small fees. As it is now most people get a new phone every year, so you have an idea of what I'm talking about. Implementation of option 1 would require the government to care for people who don't have a job, since you are destroying the competitive economy in favor of a sustainable national monopoly. | ||
|
FrogOfWar
Germany1406 Posts
On July 21 2012 17:36 zalz wrote: The proles will never revolt. No. Socialism is just redistributing the wealth from rich to poor, believing that that is either economically wise, or morally demanded. The degree to which this is done can vary, though on average the goal is not to destroy the rich class, only to make life easier for those who have least. Socialism and capitalism are not, despite what people sometimes claim, on directly opposing ends of the spectrum. It is perfectly possible to have a capitalist/socialist society, like Sweden (and really most of the Scandinavian region). Socialism stands directly oppossed to laissez faire capitalism, but not ordinary capitalism. Communism, which abolishes private property, is not compatible with capitalism. Nonsense. You're using a definition of socialism that right-wingers use as an insult but which has nothing to do with the political theory of socialism. Sweden is not a socialist country. And socialism does not mean re-distribution of wealth because it would mean that wealth wouldn't be distributed so unevenly in the first place. The mechanisms that allow for the accumulation of wealth in private hands being in place in a given country is a clear indicator of it not being socialist. However, of course there may be people, including politicians, in such a country who would like socialism and promote redistribution of wealth because it is the best (in their eyes) they can realistically do. Communism does not abolish private property. It abolishes private ownership of means of production. Huge difference. | ||
|
ParkwayDrive
United States328 Posts
the problem people have with capitalism is that it cannot fix our evil human tendencies and like any system it can be abused. this is very shortsighted. get mad art awful people, not the system that has taken us this far | ||
|
HallBregg
134 Posts
| ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 21 2012 22:44 Iyerbeth wrote: I'm opposed to capitalism not because of it's failures and contradictions (which are numerous, and not all the result of US policy, in fact one could argue much US policy is a result of them) but because even if it could somehow overcome all of them, it is still a diseased system of unfairness in which the working class are exploited by the rich. It's easy to be opposed to stuff because of its imperfections if you don't bring anything to replace it. All the other systems have failures and contradictions - more so than capitalism, I would say. And if you can think of the perfect system, don't forget that hypothetical societies are hypothetical. There are plenty of arguments against communism and anarchy, even though some people like to make those look good on paper by omitting a bunch of facts. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1d/Rct-box.jpg/256px-Rct-box.jpg) Capitalsim ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/The_Sims_Coverart.png) Communsim ![[image loading]](https://www.chantcd.com/images/1721/1721x.jpg) Capitalsin ![[image loading]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m70q6cWG8i1qk4o4zo1_500.png) Thundercats | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On July 21 2012 23:22 Djzapz wrote: It's easy to be opposed to stuff because of its imperfections if you don't bring anything to replace it. All the other systems have failures and contradictions - more so than capitalism, I would say. And if you can think of the perfect system, don't forget that hypothetical societies are hypothetical. There are plenty of arguments against communism and anarchy, even though some people like to make those look good on paper by omitting a bunch of facts. I suppose this is kinda where I am. I dislike capitalism as far as I hate communism, in the sense that the "pure" forms of both are absolutely insane, not to mention unrealistic. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 22 2012 01:27 koreasilver wrote: I suppose this is kinda where I am. I dislike capitalism as far as I hate communism, in the sense that the "pure" forms of both are absolutely insane, not to mention unrealistic. I don't see the relevance in disliking "pure" forms of economic systems when we all know that those are, like you said, unrealistic. They don't actually happen anywhere in the world. Every country in the world runs an heavily modified form of some "ism" which sometimes poorly represents the system, I personally don't hate capitalism or communism at all. Capitalism is in large part what allows me to have a high standard of living, thanks in large part to Canada and its economic system. I absolutely love the spirit of communism, the idea behind it - but I don't think it can work in today's materialistic world. So to the people who hate the forms of capitalism that we have in the West, understand that this economic system allows us to have the highest standard of living ever reached by people. The middle class lives better than kings and nobles did hundreds of years ago. Capitalism may very well be unfair, but as much as I'd prefer an egalitarian society, we can't deny what it did for us. I for one don't believe that any other system could lead to as much technological progress - the progress which allows us to have all this shit. I consider myself to be a liberal, and many of my friends like to hate rich entrepreneurs. Many of them do suck, but many of them, admittedly greed-driven in most cases, do give us good stuff... Capitalism plays on that greed and gets those people to do big things. Would people have as much of an incentive to get shit done in a communist society or in any other kind of society? I personally don't think so. | ||
|
spilledmilk
Canada40 Posts
The world has never seen true Capitalism, nor true Communism. What we have seen is hybrid forms of the two. The USA is the closest form to true Capitalism, however the fact that you must apply for licensing, and ask permission from government agencies like the FDA, FCC, etc for permission to market product, purchase companies etc kind of defeats the true notion of capitalistic enterprise. In both forms of economic policy in the modern age it is unattainable. Mostly due to the fact that greed and power cloud judgments. The last legs of Capitalism died in the 2008 recession. Likely never again will we see such ungoverned monetary movement. The last legs of Communism die each day as China opens its currency more and more. Essentially the world runs on Socialism, the ability to freely buy what the state dictates you are allowed to buy. Neither full control of the process (true communism) and neither no control of the process (true Capitalism.) There has never been a truly Capitalistic economy, nor a true Communistic Economy, and because of the nature of man we never will have either. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
"This system of governing people would be perfect, if not for the people." | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On July 22 2012 02:08 Djzapz wrote: I don't see the relevance in disliking "pure" forms of economic systems when we all know that those are, like you said, unrealistic. They don't actually happen anywhere in the world. Every country in the world runs an heavily modified form of some "ism" which sometimes poorly represents the system, I personally don't hate capitalism or communism at all. Capitalism is in large part what allows me to have a high standard of living, thanks in large part to Canada and its economic system. I absolutely love the spirit of communism, the idea behind it - but I don't think it can work in today's materialistic world. So to the people who hate the forms of capitalism that we have in the West, understand that this economic system allows us to have the highest standard of living ever reached by people. The middle class lives better than kings and nobles did hundreds of years ago. Capitalism may very well be unfair, but as much as I'd prefer an egalitarian society, we can't deny what it did for us. I for one don't believe that any other system could lead to as much technological progress - the progress which allows us to have all this shit. I consider myself to be a liberal, and many of my friends like to hate rich entrepreneurs. Many of them do suck, but many of them, admittedly greed-driven in most cases, do give us good stuff... Capitalism plays on that greed and gets those people to do big things. Would people have as much of an incentive to get shit done in a communist society or in any other kind of society? I personally don't think so. Oh, I meant my post more as that I dislike the American style "libertarians" that offer the most ridiculous apologetic for capitalism and their yearning for some fairytale pure laissez-faire nonsense in the same way that those idiotic communist acolytes would offer their defense of the failure of communism: "it wasn't real communism!" - but that's the point, there can never be an absolute communism that the purists envision because it is simply impossible. Nowadays you hear almost the exact same thing coming from the other capitalist end, where these idiots offer the same excuse. I'm not an anti-capitalist as I too know the benefits of it. But I'm always going to be suspicious of people that try to bring in some fairytale nonsense into the concrete world. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/ As far as a superficial analysis of the current moment, what zalz says in the response is more or less correct, although we would likely disagree about what to do about it. edit: On July 21 2012 19:50 FrogOfWar wrote: Communism does not abolish private property. It abolishes private ownership of means of production. Huge difference. Yes, this is a very important point. Note that, in the coming century, this will happen by technological means (open source economy, abolition of intellectual property, distributed production) and will necessitate the advent of communism (I don't mean Stalinist-leninist-maoist "communism" but something which is as yet undefined). This historical movement will, of course, be opposed by the existing bourgeois order's attempts to construct a police state, as you see now happening in this country. | ||
|
Daimai
Sweden762 Posts
http://www.thevenusproject.com/ This is the future. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On July 22 2012 02:35 zalz wrote: I am always amused by people talking about communism: "This system of governing people would be perfect, if not for the people." The point of communism is that it is an ungovernment, a stateless existence outside of this paradigm that you understand... the 99% are the vanguard of the revolution, there will be big changes... the people in charge are afraid, the oligarchs who control the media want to silence us | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On July 22 2012 03:45 sc2superfan101 wrote: capitalism is good when left as unfettered as possible. laissez-faire all the way, bitches! Here, ladies and gentlemen, we have the entire theoretical underpinnings of the "Free World" | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 22 2012 03:40 Blazinghand wrote: The point of communism is that it is an ungovernment, a stateless existence outside of this paradigm that you understand... the 99% are the vanguard of the revolution, there will be big changes... the people in charge are afraid, the oligarchs who control the media want to silence us "> so if 99% of the people are the vanguard, who makes up the main body of the revolution? the 1% typical neo-marxist pseudointellectual drivel | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On July 22 2012 03:46 Caller wrote: so if 99% of the people are the vanguard, who makes up the main body of the revolution? the 1% typical neo-marxist pseudointellectual drivel Please don't conflate this vulgar stuff with "neo-marxism." They're really more anarchists than anything else. That's a hilarious point about the "vanguard" though | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On July 22 2012 03:49 sam!zdat wrote: Please don't conflate this vulgar stuff with "neo-marxism." They're really more anarchists than anything else. That's a hilarious point about the "vanguard" though The whole point of the 99% movement isn't that literally 99% of people are out in the streets protesting. In fact, several of the protesters are wealth, and part of the top 2-3% of incomes. The protesters in the 99% movement represent the interests of the 99% who are fooled into voting for self-serving "politicians" in these "elections" | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
The problem is a lot of the people who manage to speak for the occupy movement have some very shaky theoretical understanding. This is not universally true, but the occupy movement has done a fairly good job of caricaturing itself. It's just as anti-intellectual in some respects as the other side, and this is the basic source of its impotence as a movement as such. As the expression of populist discontent, however, it's useful, and I'm glad it exists. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On July 22 2012 03:51 Blazinghand wrote: The whole point of the 99% movement isn't that literally 99% of people are out in the streets protesting. In fact, several of the protesters are wealth, and part of the top 2-3% of incomes. The protesters in the 99% movement represent the interests of the 99% who are fooled into voting for self-serving "politicians" in these "elections" the protestors in the "99%" whom do not even represent the views or wishes of the majority.... much less 99% of the population... and yes, it's always easy to claim that the other side is brainwashed... and yes, if you work off the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed, then there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to talk about. you will ignore any rationality or reasoning they give you, any evidence or proof, and just keep spouting the brainwashing argument. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 22 2012 04:06 sc2superfan101 wrote: the protestors in the "99%" whom do not even represent the views or wishes of the majority.... much less 99% of the population... and yes, it's always easy to claim that the other side is brainwashed... and yes, if you work off the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed, then there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to talk about. you will ignore any rationality or reasoning they give you, any evidence or proof, and just keep spouting the brainwashing argument. Please stop screwing around with the words to make arguments easier to handle. The 99% represent the actual interest of the 99%, rather than what they think their interests are. We never talked about the "wishes" of the 99%. That's why he specifically says that many of the 99% are "fooled" - since their wishes and interests are incompatible. As for your disingenuous use of the word "brainwashed", I think you should take a step back and look into what the guy said. He said "fooled". I know that the likes of you like to make arguments by bending the truth, I've read many of your posts in threads about politics. You use strong words that don't really represent what's being said. He was pretty clear in what he said and you completely misrepresented it. I don't know if you were intentionally dishonest or just misguided here, but be more careful when you read. You're allowed to disagree with what he says, but don't make up a convenient little story about the wishes of the 99% and brainwashing and UFOs and Wizards. As for his claim that many people in the 99% were "fooled", well I'm pretty sure that people from the right like yourself would make the same argument about people like myself who are on the left. You think we're misguided to some extent, and I think you are. How often do we hear this shit on TV: people who live partially or completely off of some social services like disability, unemployment, sometimes they're crawling under medical debt that they don't intend to pay - and they'll talk against Obama's big bad "socialism" - and yet it doesn't occur to them that they're 100% tied to it, and without it, they'd be fucked. If you were to tell them they live off "socialism", they'd say it's different. Those are people who's "wishes" contradict their "interests". In my opinion, this is made possible because Republicans and news sources like Fox News have fooled the small times folks into this ideology by tying it to the idea of patriotism and shit like that. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On July 22 2012 03:57 sam!zdat wrote: Yeah, I understand. The problem is a lot of the people who manage to speak for the occupy movement have some very shaky theoretical understanding. This is not universally true, but the occupy movement has done a fairly good job of caricaturing itself. It's just as anti-intellectual in some respects as the other side, and this is the basic source of its impotence as a movement as such. As the expression of populist discontent, however, it's useful, and I'm glad it exists. unfortunately i think this is a problem that is a given in modern times. if you don't specialize in a field of knowledge you are so far away from being able to hold an opinion backed by evidence and understanding that in trying to debate you just come across as ignorant, which you are. you can make a case that our nation's economy is well worth the time needed to fully research and understand it, but there are many other issues that are just as "important" and you're not going to be able to be knowledgeable about them all. this means that any given person's opinion about any particular issue is unlikely to be well informed so how can we really expect democracy to perform well? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
If all of the manpower in occupy went to reading books and teaching each other, there would be real power there. As for the second point, this is the purpose of recognizing authority and deferring to it. You cultivate within yourself the ability to recognize those who speak authoritatively about something, and then you defer to them. I am not in favor of american style democracy. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On July 22 2012 16:43 Birdie wrote: The USA isn't and never has been a truly capitalist country. Hong Kong was pretty close to being one at one stage, but there are very few instances of proper laissez-faire capitalism. Because that's as much of a pipe dream as soviet central planning. Capitalists don't even want laissez-faire, they just want government intervening how THEY want. | ||
|
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
On July 23 2012 00:12 sam!zdat wrote: Because that's as much of a pipe dream as soviet central planning. Capitalists don't even want laissez-faire, they just want government intervening how THEY want. Hong Kong had an amazing economy when there was little to no government interference. Once China owned HK the economy slowed down; not much because China was careful to not interfere too much on such a good cash cow but somewhat. And plenty of capitalists want laissez-faire... | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On July 23 2012 04:53 Birdie wrote: Hong Kong had an amazing economy when there was little to no government interference. Once China owned HK the economy slowed down; not much because China was careful to not interfere too much on such a good cash cow but somewhat. And plenty of capitalists want laissez-faire... They say they do. Actually wanting it is a different thing. They just naturalize the things they want the government to do, and insist on the artificiality of everything else. For example, capitalists want the government to enforce intellectual property laws, which is not laissez-faire. (edit: they also want them to give them subsidies, protect them from foreign competition, restrain labor power, etc etc) (edit again: on the other side of things, capitalists also want government to break monopolies, which is not laissez-faire either) Can't comment on the history of Hong Kong as I haven't studied it. Given the nature of its history as an entrepot, however, considering HK as a self-contained entity which illustrates the validity of some particular economic paradigm is exceedingly disingenuous. | ||
|
Birdie
New Zealand4438 Posts
For example, capitalists want the government to enforce intellectual property laws, which is not laissez-faire. (edit: they also want them to give them subsidies, protect them from foreign competition, restrain labor power, etc etc) (edit again: on the other side of things, capitalists also want government to break monopolies, which is not laissez-faire either) None of those things are laissez-faire, as you pointed out; proponents of a free market don't want any of them, because they interfere with the market, which generally results in a worse outcome for both businesses and the consumer. You must talk to different capitalists than I  fairly socialist capitalists. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
My point here is just to indicate the disconnect between the ideology of the haut-bourgeoisie and their actual policy interests. People who both profess to be and actually are liberals are a different story, with their own problems. In this case, it's a genuine (if ill-informed and magical/fetishistic) belief in the benevolence of markets. The haut-bourgeoisie talks about the market as a cover for conspiring against it, while the libertarian political economist is a true believer. The first is sinister, the second merely silly. edit: libertarianism is class struggle of the petit-bourgeoisie against the haut-bourgeoisie | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On July 23 2012 13:16 sam!zdat wrote: In other news, I really wish we could have capitalsim instead of capitalism, things would go much nicer and people could still have their fun Your wish is my command! www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=355100  | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On July 21 2012 16:19 thrawn2112 wrote: I've seen a lot of hate for capitalism lately I haven't. And that's a big part of the problem. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
On July 24 2012 00:15 Talin wrote: I haven't. And that's a big part of the problem. Here Here! Speaking poorly of capitalism, at least via my experience of being born and raised in the US, is a surefire way to get average Americans to label you a heretic. God, the Bible, the Constitution, Capitalism. All are worshipped like deities, and it is now high time that Moses come back down Mt. Sinai and tear down the golden cow of self-assured idea slavery! | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
