That could happen... but a more likely scenario is what is happening to USA. What's not to stop these companies from outsourcing to ANOTHER country and seeling it back in China or whatever? The latter is a more plausible scenario than yours because it is already happening, and also because it maximizes profits...
With the 9% growth econemy growth rate substained over the next 20 years, China may get a chance to pass Japan in 2025 in GDP.
China already has a higher GDP (adjusted for PPP) than Japan: China's $5.7 trillion vs Japan's $3.55 trillion.
Of course, its GDP per capita is MUCH lower and maybe that's what you were talking about (although I doubt it would match Japan's even in 2025--if China can increase its GDP per capita to the present Japan levels (7x more), it would be one of the biggest economic accomplishments in the HISTORY of the world (I don't think it will though: 7x increase in GDP per capita will likely require a revolution and the implementation of a totally new system that humans don't know about)).
To balance some of the doom and gloom, if outsourcing does not reach some kind of equilibrium point on it's own, the fed and congress will act in a big way, I'm sure, to curtail a huge deflationary cycle.
That will be known as Socialism Attempt 2... Attempt 1 was the New Deal by FDR during the Great Depression. I don't think it will succeed though--the capitalists are too strong...
We are steadily marching towards a new feudalism that will destroy eliminate democracy by making it irrelevant. My ability to vote will mean NOTHING if I have to wait in line with thousands for an opportunity to merely GIVE away my skills an labor.
That's not feudalism; that's capitalism! BTW, (pure) democracy and (pure) capitalism are incompatible. Under capitalism, a tiny minority will hoard resources and wealth (and hence be powerful). Under a democracy, the majority will overthrow this tiny minority...
Getting an education will not get you a job. Take it from me...and from countless others. Employers always look for particular skills and experience. Just because you have an education won't get you a job...
That's not illegal. That's capitalism! Practically every company does this. Do you know how Microsoft wins in some key markets? How about IBM? How about G.E? In fact, business schools teach that stuff (although without the negative conotations you mentioned)...
I know that is a joke post but for someone who is doing what this guy is talking about... Unless you are a leftist who does not want to help capitalist institutions (you don't seem like one), you SHOULD invest your money. Even if banks charge service fees, the interest they pay will be higher. If you don't invest, inflation will eat your savings. In 50 years, $1 will be worth $10 (maybe) while your savings are fixed.
I agree. In theory, there is no best econopolitical system. A fascist would prefer a system where their "kind" is valued more than others, while a socialist wouldn't. An anarchist would prefer a world without goverment controlling people, while a totalitarian wants everyone controlled right down to the clothes they wear.
However, people, whether left or right, have speculated on the FUTURE of capitalism (as opposed to speculating on whether capitalism is best). On this, we CAN figure out if someone is right. For instance, if I say capitalism is going to collapse, while another says it won't, one of us going to be proven right.
You must be the first one that has ever mentioned 'creationist' and 'communist' in the same sentence. Two ideologies fruther from each other than anything...
On to your main point...
I sort of agree with the original poster although we are talking about capitalism and not imperialism in this case.
Japan and Korea are wealthy no doubt. But you do realize that these capitalist countries have massive debts don't you? These countries, just like USA, have mortgaged their future for the present. In addition, does anyone really think Japan, for example, is not a lapdog of USA? There is a joke which goes something like "What's Japan's policy on x? I don't know. Let's ask USA". Japan has not had an independent foreign policy in over 50 years. There is nothing that Japan does that can be thought of as independent. Of course, if you just care about economics and could care less about independence, Japan is a great country to live in.
Having said that, imperialism does not apply to India or China. What will happen in these cases is that these countries will become slaves to the capitalists. What will happen is that the day will come when the wages will rise, standard of living will go up, and so on. When that happens, the capitalists will threaten to move to another country, wrecking the country. The country will be "forced" to do whatever the capitalists demand. This is pretty much the norm in South America. Just study it over the last 10 or 15 years. Look where Argentina is--the poster boy of capitalism. The country that will probably resist all this enforcement is probably China...
BTW, could you stop referring to India as a socialist country? I know the US propaganda machine brainwashed everyone into thinking it was. But come on. Is there a country that is independent from USA that is NOT socialist or communist?
That's a very important thought. It will be interesting to note how this plays out given history...
There are some differences from the past though. First of all, the capitalists have FAR GREATER wealth than at any point in history (I'm not counting monarchs, tyrants, and merchantilists as capitalists). The gap between those that own the means of production (what Marx called a capitalist) and those that work for money (what Marx called a worker), is at unprecedented levels. What this discrepancy in wealth means is that the wealthy elites are more POWERFUL nowadays. In the past, it wasn't this bad. Since the gap wasn't as large, the workers actually had a lot more power. Conversely, what the workers lost wasn't that much. For instance, the people who lost jobs wer mostly general labour (read: "unskilled") and hence can do other jobs. Someone who works in a textile factory can just as easily become a newspaper deliveryperson. Nowadays, it isn't so easy. Unemployed people have a great difficulty finding any other job.
Second, capitalism has not occurred at the GLOBAL scale before. Even when things were happening on the planetary scale, there was lots of protectionism and socialism to really block capitalism. Now, that is not the case. So in some sense, what is happening now has NEVER happened before.
I personally predict that the modern era is going to be the biggest test capitalism has ever seen. Capitalism will either win or lose due to events that transpire over the next several decades. Leftists like me predict the collapse of capitalism. But right-wingers predict the rise of capitalism. It remains to be seen...
The thing you quasi-capitalists don't realize is that the extra benefit accrues to the wealthy. The price of products hardly ever drops 50% (using your example). The wealthy elites get a chunk of it. In some cases, the price doesn't drop AT ALL. A toy that cost $1 10 years ago is still around $1 (adjust for inflation) even though the company has outsourced manufacturing to say Mexico. Price of cars haven't really decreased over the last 10 years even though a chunk of it is manufactured in cheaper places. What is happening is that the benefits (the 50%) is accruing to those that own the corporations. Now, you could argue that everyone owns corporations (something like 60% of Americans invest in the stock market). But these 60% only like 20% of the stock.
Anyway, I think capitalism is approaching a critical juncture in its life (I would put it on the same point as during the Great Depression and the battle between socialism vs capitalism (before WWII or anything like that)). Capitalism is either going to win or lose. We'll know it within our lifetime. What is happening is what Karl Marx predicted a long time ago, and what capitalits have been hoping for. Namely, GLOBAL trade to improve efficiency. Capitalism has never really done anything on a GLOBAL scale. Now, it is. Add to this the increasingly massive trade deficits of countries like USA. We'll know if the left-wing is right or if the right-wing is right.
The only difference between the Soviets and the Nazis is that the Nazis were smart enough to let qualified people run the companies. The State still owned them for all practical purposes. The notion that the fascists were the opposite of the communists is an oversimplistic fallacy.
If you let the economy be driven by (private) individuals, as the Nazis did, it is not socialist. It's that simple. There is nothing more to it. Your assertion that the goverment somehow had control was completely false. The Nazi government had very little control of the economy. This is why you had rich wealthy capitalits running everything. The only thing the Nazis had control over was politics. Capitalism, in case you don't know, does not delve into politics. Nazis practiced fascism on top of capitalism. It's too bad you have no understanding of that.
As far as opposite of fascism is concerned, there really isn't a true opposite when it comes to econopolitical systems (since these systems and complex and have many traits). But if you want to pick one, the closest thing to an opposite of fascism is anarchism.
You claim to understand history but the fact that you claim Nazism is socialism just shows that you know very little.
...there are only really two types of political thought. Those who think people need to be controlled and those who don't.
That is such a simplistic view that it isn't even worth addressing. It is just as idiotic as Bush's "You are with us or against us" line. Your line of thinking reduces everything into anarchism and non-anarchism. That's correct in some sense but for all intensive purposes it is irrelevant. Even capitalism calls for controls to be placed (eg. capitalism requires government to enforce private property. Even the pure capitalists call for minimal goverment that will enforce property rights.).
The natural state of commerce is free markets.
There is no such thing as a natural state. There never has been a free market and never will be. Free markets are not in the interest of most humans therefore they won't support it. For example, most people will support fair wages and not market wages.
You can't have real socialism without totalitarianism (which is the real enemy of the people as you correctly stated).
Explain why.
You can have a centrist mix of free markets with social programs like the U.S. and Europe.
You are not using the language properly. Mixed economies are hardly centrist. There is no such thing as a centrist system. Europe and Canada are capitalist! They have socialist ideals but that's a minor thing. You cannot call a country socialist when they are practicing capitalism. Socialists AND capitalists both claim that it is unstable to run a mixed economy. One or the other has to lose. Right now, the socialists are losing. You'll note that these countries are dismantling their socialist institutions (like public schools, public libraries, public healthcare, etc). These countries are becoming more capitalitst by the day.
I'm an avid reader of history and political theory, I just happen to disagree with you.
You don't show it... I mean, you claim Nazism is a form of socialism (By the way, that article that you quoted is the most idiotic thing I have read in a while. The author claims that (Italian) Fascists are the forefathers of socialism. lol That's just too funny. Find me a leftist book/article/etc that worships any of thse fascists. If the Fascists are indeed socialists, one would think that some leftist out there would be praising them, no? I mean, you can find leftists supporting Lenin but can you find one supporting Mussolini or Hitler?). Then you claim that all political ideologies reduce to anarchism (no one has power over individual) and non-anarchism (someone/something has power over you). It seems like you don't really understand much. I mean, do you even know what egalitarianism is? How does that fit in with fascism?
Taxes do not increase the cost of living (at least as much as you imply). If that were the case then how come Europe's cost of living is often LOWER even though they have similar sales taxes?
The poor countries also have sales taxes as well. It's not as if they don't have gasoline tax, etc.
Taxes have small impact on the cost of living (at least when you talk about changes as opposed to total elimination). If you don't believe this, ask yourself why it costs a fortune to live in places like New York and California. Are they really chargning some insane tax? Not really... The developing countries are the equivalent of the other states; the rich countries are the equivalient of California or New York... Can you really use taxes to explain this?
I am not blaming Wal-Mart for labour conditions in China, or for that matter any other country. I am blaming them for taking ADVANTAGE of others and exploiting them. BTW, this has nothing to do with China. It could be India, or Philliphines, or South Africa, or whatever. It's all the same.
I find it ironic that you claim to support capitalism yet make sure you only buy products from certain countries. Since when did capitalism resort to protectionism or boycotts?
Because human beings are not property unless the government says they are. If the government does not say humans are property, then any attempt to own human beings is illegal, e.g. kidnapping, and is one of if not the main reason for government -- preservation of human rights.
That's COMPLETELY wrong. When did a government have to say something is a property for it to be traded? Under capitalism, ANYTHING is a property. It looks like you don't even know your own system. Under capitalism, government intervention is zero. Government is not the one that says people are slaves--it's the market that says that. If people engage is trading of slaves, it's perfectly ok. If anything, it's the government that PREVENTS you from trading slaves. Without the government you can legally trade anything. The government is acting like a socialist state in blocking slaves from being traded.
Only capitalism as an economic system, and libertarianism as originally specified by the U.S.A. founding fathers, placed human freedom as supremely important.
You must have a skewed view of history (like conservatives). If you quoted modern liberatarianism, you may have a point. But quoting the original liberatarianism is your loss. The Founding Fathers were PRO-SLAVE. Washington and Jefferson owned a ton of slaves and they never freed them. The US government also had many opportunities to outlaw slavery but they never did. Under the free market of the early days, slaves were open traded on markets. This was so because slaves were property (and you can trade anything under capitalism). The only reason slavery is not practiced now is, not because of the Founding Fathers or capitalism, but because the government INTERVENES and makes it ILLEGAL. This, needless to say, is against capitalism since it is govt intervention. In fact, the capitalists of that era used the same argument that modern day capitalists use against minimum wage to justify slavery. Before the government outlawed it, slavery was perfectly fine.
Your fault is the brainwashing you received (I guess from your school). The Founding Fathers certainly "placed human freedom as supremely important." But you fail to realize that the Founding Fathers only considered WHITE MEN to be humans. Others weren't. If anything, blacks (and other non-whites) were the same thing as a rock on the ground--nothing more than a piece of property.
In any case, the Founding Fathers were less liberatarian than the American Liberatarians like to claim. The Founding Fathers were actually radical liberals (they are called classical liberals). They share more with liberalism than with liberatarianism. For instance, if someone was a liberatarian, they would have been in favour of abolishment of slavery, homosexuality, etc. Many weren't!
You can use money to induce slavery... So yes, money is a kind of modern day slavery. In fact, I consider myself to be an economic slave. I am a slave to the capitalist overlords*.
(* I'm unemployed right now but I'm talking about the case when I am working).
lol Maybe you should read up on thse systems first. North Korea communist? Cambodia? If those countries are capitalist, Iraq is too (we all know how much USA supported it, don't we?).
Socialism kills, free markets feed.
Do you need to get your brain examined? How about Nazi Germany which was capitalist? I think you seriously have a lack of understanding of the world. Socialism doesn't kill; Totalitarianism does! Of course, you have no idea of the difference. Just wait until USA switches to totalitarianism when the terrorists hit USA again.
First of all, I don't know why you are bringing the Civil War into this. Yes, I realize that it was NOT about slavery--it was about seperation. That's why I'm against the Civil War (it was wrong).
Anyway, the fact that USA was industrialized does not make it capitalist (although in this case it was). You can have cases where a country is capitalist but that doesn't mean the people are. Just like how you can have a country that is socialist yet the people aren't.
Slavery was NOT abolished by capitalists. Capitalists were PRO-SLAVERY. Why don't you check out the history of some wealthy capitalists in the North? They were against the war (except for the war profiteers) and abolishment of slavery. The people who wanted to abolish slavery were hardly capitalists. They were all liberals and liberatarians, mostly the lower classes. Abolishment of slavery was driven by these people--not capitalists! Capitalism is an economic system and slaves are perfectly ok under it.
So it's better not to have any options, and be FORCED to starve then it is to choose between starving and entering into a shitty arrangement that at least lets you eat?
The world existed for thousands of years without capitalism. Many ancient civilizations supported large populations and complex societies without capitalism. I'm not saying the people were better off back then but my point is... Your implication that these poor people must accept a horrible life and become a wage slave is ignoring humanity. There is no reason why people have to either live as a wage slave or die...
Hey, thanks for making all sorts of assumptions about my line of reasoning and motivations - love when that happens.
You are welcome;)... Actually, I threw some arguments at capitalism as a system. I have no idea how capitalistic you are... I admit that my points were mostly inflammatory...
As far as cases wgere government initiates mass propoganda and disinformation - well that's a bad thing regardless of the economic system.
I agree... let's skip this issue for now. It's irrelevant to the rest...
And no, capatalists don't think slavery is ok - not unless they can't distinguish between humans and properties. A capatalist can't buy and sell that which isn't considered to be property.
Just like how abolishing slavery is against capitalism, so is minimum wage. Capitalists don't argue in favour of slavery however, they still argue against minimum wage. Slavery is similar to minimum wage.
Under pure capitalism, slaves would be considered property--as they were for thousands of years. The only reason you don't have slavery is because the GOVERNMENT abolished it. It is ILLEGAL for you to own slaves in USA (or 90%+ of other countries who signed UN treaties). In other words, this is government intervention in the markets. This is against (pure) capitalism. Just consider how a hypothetical (pure) capitalist world will be (zero govt intervention, very few laws except to enforce property rights, etc). Under such a world, slavery will necessarily manifest itself. People WILL engage in slavery under a capitalist world. Without hte goverment what is to stop it? Certain forms of prostituion ALREADY borders close to slavery. There are millions of underage kids being sexually abused in many countries. There are also millions of women being RAPED every day of their lives for little money. When we talk about abuse, we are not talking about the Hollywood version where some prostitute makes a ton of money. These children and women are actually ABUSED. They are forced to perform sexual acts that will be totally illegal and immoral. Yet they do it! All because they are poor and will do ANYTHING! Until you are in that situation, or until you realize the choices faced by these people, you have NO IDEA what what you are talking about. *I* have no idea what I'm talking about either. However, I think I have a better idea of the social issues than you.
The problem with you--and your fellow capitalists--is that you never consider the notion of MORALITY. There are EVIL people in this world. People will engage in activities that are totally immoral. You and your capitalist friends have no idea of morality. To you, it's just a market run by supply & demand. You people take any action that a person performs is taken to be rational and "good". Yet it is never the case. When a person abandons their OWN child in the streets in poor countries, you view that as their own choice--a choice that they are happy about. In reality it is never that case. If these people were a little bit richer, if they were a lit bit calmer, if they were a little bit thoughtful, they never would abandon their child--just like how you wouldn't. You never consider the situations faced by the people. To you, there is no difference between someone offering themselves when they are poor versus when they are rich.
It's not explotation if someone chooses, with all the information presented in front of him/her, to enter into the situation without coersion.
With that view, there is no such thing as exploitation. Why do we even have the world 'exploitation'?
Capitalism is HEARTLESS... you being a proponent of it, will become one--if you aren't one already.
Slashdot Mirror
That could happen... but a more likely scenario is what is happening to USA. What's not to stop these companies from outsourcing to ANOTHER country and seeling it back in China or whatever? The latter is a more plausible scenario than yours because it is already happening, and also because it maximizes profits ...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
With the 9% growth econemy growth rate substained over the next 20 years, China may get a chance to pass Japan in 2025 in GDP.
China already has a higher GDP (adjusted for PPP) than Japan: China's $5.7 trillion vs Japan's $3.55 trillion.
Of course, its GDP per capita is MUCH lower and maybe that's what you were talking about (although I doubt it would match Japan's even in 2025--if China can increase its GDP per capita to the present Japan levels (7x more), it would be one of the biggest economic accomplishments in the HISTORY of the world (I don't think it will though: 7x increase in GDP per capita will likely require a revolution and the implementation of a totally new system that humans don't know about)).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
To balance some of the doom and gloom, if outsourcing does not reach some kind of equilibrium point on it's own, the fed and congress will act in a big way, I'm sure, to curtail a huge deflationary cycle.
That will be known as Socialism Attempt 2... Attempt 1 was the New Deal by FDR during the Great Depression. I don't think it will succeed though--the capitalists are too strong...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
We are steadily marching towards a new feudalism that will destroy eliminate democracy by making it irrelevant. My ability to vote will mean NOTHING if I have to wait in line with thousands for an opportunity to merely GIVE away my skills an labor.
That's not feudalism; that's capitalism! BTW, (pure) democracy and (pure) capitalism are incompatible. Under capitalism, a tiny minority will hoard resources and wealth (and hence be powerful). Under a democracy, the majority will overthrow this tiny minority...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Getting an education will not get you a job. Take it from me...and from countless others. Employers always look for particular skills and experience. Just because you have an education won't get you a job...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's not illegal. That's capitalism! Practically every company does this. Do you know how Microsoft wins in some key markets? How about IBM? How about G.E? In fact, business schools teach that stuff (although without the negative conotations you mentioned)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I know that is a joke post but for someone who is doing what this guy is talking about... Unless you are a leftist who does not want to help capitalist institutions (you don't seem like one), you SHOULD invest your money. Even if banks charge service fees, the interest they pay will be higher. If you don't invest, inflation will eat your savings. In 50 years, $1 will be worth $10 (maybe) while your savings are fixed.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
And yes, I am a capitalist - but free markets I don't see.....
If you don't support free markets, you are not a capitalist. Free markets are a key ideal for capitalism, just like private property is.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I agree. In theory, there is no best econopolitical system. A fascist would prefer a system where their "kind" is valued more than others, while a socialist wouldn't. An anarchist would prefer a world without goverment controlling people, while a totalitarian wants everyone controlled right down to the clothes they wear.
However, people, whether left or right, have speculated on the FUTURE of capitalism (as opposed to speculating on whether capitalism is best). On this, we CAN figure out if someone is right. For instance, if I say capitalism is going to collapse, while another says it won't, one of us going to be proven right.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Indians aren't Aryans... most are mixed (Aryans+ancient civilization)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You must be the first one that has ever mentioned 'creationist' and 'communist' in the same sentence. Two ideologies fruther from each other than anything...
On to your main point...
I sort of agree with the original poster although we are talking about capitalism and not imperialism in this case.
Japan and Korea are wealthy no doubt. But you do realize that these capitalist countries have massive debts don't you? These countries, just like USA, have mortgaged their future for the present. In addition, does anyone really think Japan, for example, is not a lapdog of USA? There is a joke which goes something like "What's Japan's policy on x? I don't know. Let's ask USA". Japan has not had an independent foreign policy in over 50 years. There is nothing that Japan does that can be thought of as independent. Of course, if you just care about economics and could care less about independence, Japan is a great country to live in.
Having said that, imperialism does not apply to India or China. What will happen in these cases is that these countries will become slaves to the capitalists. What will happen is that the day will come when the wages will rise, standard of living will go up, and so on. When that happens, the capitalists will threaten to move to another country, wrecking the country. The country will be "forced" to do whatever the capitalists demand. This is pretty much the norm in South America. Just study it over the last 10 or 15 years. Look where Argentina is--the poster boy of capitalism. The country that will probably resist all this enforcement is probably China...
BTW, could you stop referring to India as a socialist country? I know the US propaganda machine brainwashed everyone into thinking it was. But come on. Is there a country that is independent from USA that is NOT socialist or communist?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's a very important thought. It will be interesting to note how this plays out given history...
There are some differences from the past though. First of all, the capitalists have FAR GREATER wealth than at any point in history (I'm not counting monarchs, tyrants, and merchantilists as capitalists). The gap between those that own the means of production (what Marx called a capitalist) and those that work for money (what Marx called a worker), is at unprecedented levels. What this discrepancy in wealth means is that the wealthy elites are more POWERFUL nowadays. In the past, it wasn't this bad. Since the gap wasn't as large, the workers actually had a lot more power. Conversely, what the workers lost wasn't that much. For instance, the people who lost jobs wer mostly general labour (read: "unskilled") and hence can do other jobs. Someone who works in a textile factory can just as easily become a newspaper deliveryperson. Nowadays, it isn't so easy. Unemployed people have a great difficulty finding any other job.
Second, capitalism has not occurred at the GLOBAL scale before. Even when things were happening on the planetary scale, there was lots of protectionism and socialism to really block capitalism. Now, that is not the case. So in some sense, what is happening now has NEVER happened before.
I personally predict that the modern era is going to be the biggest test capitalism has ever seen. Capitalism will either win or lose due to events that transpire over the next several decades. Leftists like me predict the collapse of capitalism. But right-wingers predict the rise of capitalism. It remains to be seen...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Oh yeah? Wait until the capitalists shrink government and let most services be provided by private businesses...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The thing you quasi-capitalists don't realize is that the extra benefit accrues to the wealthy. The price of products hardly ever drops 50% (using your example). The wealthy elites get a chunk of it. In some cases, the price doesn't drop AT ALL. A toy that cost $1 10 years ago is still around $1 (adjust for inflation) even though the company has outsourced manufacturing to say Mexico. Price of cars haven't really decreased over the last 10 years even though a chunk of it is manufactured in cheaper places. What is happening is that the benefits (the 50%) is accruing to those that own the corporations. Now, you could argue that everyone owns corporations (something like 60% of Americans invest in the stock market). But these 60% only like 20% of the stock.
Anyway, I think capitalism is approaching a critical juncture in its life (I would put it on the same point as during the Great Depression and the battle between socialism vs capitalism (before WWII or anything like that)). Capitalism is either going to win or lose. We'll know it within our lifetime. What is happening is what Karl Marx predicted a long time ago, and what capitalits have been hoping for. Namely, GLOBAL trade to improve efficiency. Capitalism has never really done anything on a GLOBAL scale. Now, it is. Add to this the increasingly massive trade deficits of countries like USA. We'll know if the left-wing is right or if the right-wing is right.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The only difference between the Soviets and the Nazis is that the Nazis were smart enough to let qualified people run the companies. The State still owned them for all practical purposes. The notion that the fascists were the opposite of the communists is an oversimplistic fallacy.
...there are only really two types of political thought. Those who think people need to be controlled and those who don't.
If you let the economy be driven by (private) individuals, as the Nazis did, it is not socialist. It's that simple. There is nothing more to it. Your assertion that the goverment somehow had control was completely false. The Nazi government had very little control of the economy. This is why you had rich wealthy capitalits running everything. The only thing the Nazis had control over was politics. Capitalism, in case you don't know, does not delve into politics. Nazis practiced fascism on top of capitalism. It's too bad you have no understanding of that.
As far as opposite of fascism is concerned, there really isn't a true opposite when it comes to econopolitical systems (since these systems and complex and have many traits). But if you want to pick one, the closest thing to an opposite of fascism is anarchism.
You claim to understand history but the fact that you claim Nazism is socialism just shows that you know very little.
That is such a simplistic view that it isn't even worth addressing. It is just as idiotic as Bush's "You are with us or against us" line. Your line of thinking reduces everything into anarchism and non-anarchism. That's correct in some sense but for all intensive purposes it is irrelevant. Even capitalism calls for controls to be placed (eg. capitalism requires government to enforce private property. Even the pure capitalists call for minimal goverment that will enforce property rights.).
The natural state of commerce is free markets.
There is no such thing as a natural state. There never has been a free market and never will be. Free markets are not in the interest of most humans therefore they won't support it. For example, most people will support fair wages and not market wages.
You can't have real socialism without totalitarianism (which is the real enemy of the people as you correctly stated).
Explain why.
You can have a centrist mix of free markets with social programs like the U.S. and Europe.
You are not using the language properly. Mixed economies are hardly centrist. There is no such thing as a centrist system. Europe and Canada are capitalist! They have socialist ideals but that's a minor thing. You cannot call a country socialist when they are practicing capitalism. Socialists AND capitalists both claim that it is unstable to run a mixed economy. One or the other has to lose. Right now, the socialists are losing. You'll note that these countries are dismantling their socialist institutions (like public schools, public libraries, public healthcare, etc). These countries are becoming more capitalitst by the day.
I'm an avid reader of history and political theory, I just happen to disagree with you.
You don't show it... I mean, you claim Nazism is a form of socialism (By the way, that article that you quoted is the most idiotic thing I have read in a while. The author claims that (Italian) Fascists are the forefathers of socialism. lol That's just too funny. Find me a leftist book/article/etc that worships any of thse fascists. If the Fascists are indeed socialists, one would think that some leftist out there would be praising them, no? I mean, you can find leftists supporting Lenin but can you find one supporting Mussolini or Hitler?). Then you claim that all political ideologies reduce to anarchism (no one has power over individual) and non-anarchism (someone/something has power over you). It seems like you don't really understand much. I mean, do you even know what egalitarianism is? How does that fit in with fascism?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Taxes do not increase the cost of living (at least as much as you imply). If that were the case then how come Europe's cost of living is often LOWER even though they have similar sales taxes?
The poor countries also have sales taxes as well. It's not as if they don't have gasoline tax, etc.
Taxes have small impact on the cost of living (at least when you talk about changes as opposed to total elimination). If you don't believe this, ask yourself why it costs a fortune to live in places like New York and California. Are they really chargning some insane tax? Not really... The developing countries are the equivalent of the other states; the rich countries are the equivalient of California or New York... Can you really use taxes to explain this?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How can you tell a capitalist from a kilometer away? Their solution to everything is to cut taxes. Let's see...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I am not blaming Wal-Mart for labour conditions in China, or for that matter any other country. I am blaming them for taking ADVANTAGE of others and exploiting them. BTW, this has nothing to do with China. It could be India, or Philliphines, or South Africa, or whatever. It's all the same.
I find it ironic that you claim to support capitalism yet make sure you only buy products from certain countries. Since when did capitalism resort to protectionism or boycotts?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
(NOT QUOTED IN ORDER)
Because human beings are not property unless the government says they are. If the government does not say humans are property, then any attempt to own human beings is illegal, e.g. kidnapping, and is one of if not the main reason for government -- preservation of human rights.
That's COMPLETELY wrong. When did a government have to say something is a property for it to be traded? Under capitalism, ANYTHING is a property. It looks like you don't even know your own system. Under capitalism, government intervention is zero. Government is not the one that says people are slaves--it's the market that says that. If people engage is trading of slaves, it's perfectly ok. If anything, it's the government that PREVENTS you from trading slaves. Without the government you can legally trade anything. The government is acting like a socialist state in blocking slaves from being traded.
Only capitalism as an economic system, and libertarianism as originally specified by the U.S.A. founding fathers, placed human freedom as supremely important.
You must have a skewed view of history (like conservatives). If you quoted modern liberatarianism, you may have a point. But quoting the original liberatarianism is your loss. The Founding Fathers were PRO-SLAVE. Washington and Jefferson owned a ton of slaves and they never freed them. The US government also had many opportunities to outlaw slavery but they never did. Under the free market of the early days, slaves were open traded on markets. This was so because slaves were property (and you can trade anything under capitalism). The only reason slavery is not practiced now is, not because of the Founding Fathers or capitalism, but because the government INTERVENES and makes it ILLEGAL. This, needless to say, is against capitalism since it is govt intervention. In fact, the capitalists of that era used the same argument that modern day capitalists use against minimum wage to justify slavery. Before the government outlawed it, slavery was perfectly fine.
Your fault is the brainwashing you received (I guess from your school). The Founding Fathers certainly "placed human freedom as supremely important." But you fail to realize that the Founding Fathers only considered WHITE MEN to be humans. Others weren't. If anything, blacks (and other non-whites) were the same thing as a rock on the ground--nothing more than a piece of property.
In any case, the Founding Fathers were less liberatarian than the American Liberatarians like to claim. The Founding Fathers were actually radical liberals (they are called classical liberals). They share more with liberalism than with liberatarianism. For instance, if someone was a liberatarian, they would have been in favour of abolishment of slavery, homosexuality, etc. Many weren't!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That guy can hardly be an anti-socialist...given that he is quoting George Orwell...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You can use money to induce slavery... So yes, money is a kind of modern day slavery. In fact, I consider myself to be an economic slave. I am a slave to the capitalist overlords*.
(* I'm unemployed right now but I'm talking about the case when I am working).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol Maybe you should read up on thse systems first. North Korea communist? Cambodia? If those countries are capitalist, Iraq is too (we all know how much USA supported it, don't we?).
Socialism kills, free markets feed.
Do you need to get your brain examined? How about Nazi Germany which was capitalist? I think you seriously have a lack of understanding of the world. Socialism doesn't kill; Totalitarianism does! Of course, you have no idea of the difference. Just wait until USA switches to totalitarianism when the terrorists hit USA again.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
First of all, I don't know why you are bringing the Civil War into this. Yes, I realize that it was NOT about slavery--it was about seperation. That's why I'm against the Civil War (it was wrong).
Anyway, the fact that USA was industrialized does not make it capitalist (although in this case it was). You can have cases where a country is capitalist but that doesn't mean the people are. Just like how you can have a country that is socialist yet the people aren't.
Slavery was NOT abolished by capitalists. Capitalists were PRO-SLAVERY. Why don't you check out the history of some wealthy capitalists in the North? They were against the war (except for the war profiteers) and abolishment of slavery. The people who wanted to abolish slavery were hardly capitalists. They were all liberals and liberatarians, mostly the lower classes. Abolishment of slavery was driven by these people--not capitalists! Capitalism is an economic system and slaves are perfectly ok under it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
So it's better not to have any options, and be FORCED to starve then it is to choose between starving and entering into a shitty arrangement that at least lets you eat?
The world existed for thousands of years without capitalism. Many ancient civilizations supported large populations and complex societies without capitalism. I'm not saying the people were better off back then but my point is... Your implication that these poor people must accept a horrible life and become a wage slave is ignoring humanity. There is no reason why people have to either live as a wage slave or die...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
(NOT QUOTED IN ORDER)
;)... Actually, I threw some arguments at capitalism as a system. I have no idea how capitalistic you are... I admit that my points were mostly inflammatory...
Hey, thanks for making all sorts of assumptions about my line of reasoning and motivations - love when that happens.
You are welcome
As far as cases wgere government initiates mass propoganda and disinformation - well that's a bad thing regardless of the economic system.
I agree... let's skip this issue for now. It's irrelevant to the rest...
And no, capatalists don't think slavery is ok - not unless they can't distinguish between humans and properties. A capatalist can't buy and sell that which isn't considered to be property.
Just like how abolishing slavery is against capitalism, so is minimum wage. Capitalists don't argue in favour of slavery however, they still argue against minimum wage. Slavery is similar to minimum wage.
Under pure capitalism, slaves would be considered property--as they were for thousands of years. The only reason you don't have slavery is because the GOVERNMENT abolished it. It is ILLEGAL for you to own slaves in USA (or 90%+ of other countries who signed UN treaties). In other words, this is government intervention in the markets. This is against (pure) capitalism. Just consider how a hypothetical (pure) capitalist world will be (zero govt intervention, very few laws except to enforce property rights, etc). Under such a world, slavery will necessarily manifest itself. People WILL engage in slavery under a capitalist world. Without hte goverment what is to stop it? Certain forms of prostituion ALREADY borders close to slavery. There are millions of underage kids being sexually abused in many countries. There are also millions of women being RAPED every day of their lives for little money. When we talk about abuse, we are not talking about the Hollywood version where some prostitute makes a ton of money. These children and women are actually ABUSED. They are forced to perform sexual acts that will be totally illegal and immoral. Yet they do it! All because they are poor and will do ANYTHING! Until you are in that situation, or until you realize the choices faced by these people, you have NO IDEA what what you are talking about. *I* have no idea what I'm talking about either. However, I think I have a better idea of the social issues than you.
The problem with you--and your fellow capitalists--is that you never consider the notion of MORALITY. There are EVIL people in this world. People will engage in activities that are totally immoral. You and your capitalist friends have no idea of morality. To you, it's just a market run by supply & demand. You people take any action that a person performs is taken to be rational and "good". Yet it is never the case. When a person abandons their OWN child in the streets in poor countries, you view that as their own choice--a choice that they are happy about. In reality it is never that case. If these people were a little bit richer, if they were a lit bit calmer, if they were a little bit thoughtful, they never would abandon their child--just like how you wouldn't. You never consider the situations faced by the people. To you, there is no difference between someone offering themselves when they are poor versus when they are rich.
It's not explotation if someone chooses, with all the information presented in front of him/her, to enter into the situation without coersion.
With that view, there is no such thing as exploitation. Why do we even have the world 'exploitation'?
Capitalism is HEARTLESS... you being a proponent of it, will become one--if you aren't one already.
Sivaram Velauthapillai