End of capitalism

[Unclaimed]

I think capitalism should end, here's why:

    1. Pollution, Capitalists have polluted rivers, streams and the air, they will not stop any time soon if nothing changes.

    2. Inequality, some people can barely afford food, some have massive 4 course meals for themselves, and some are somewhere in the middle, this is just one example of inequality.

    3. Not Democratic, yes, the state might be democratic, but the management of companies is not. workers do not get a say in company policies, sometimes workers are fired without reason. (this video has more detail)

    4. Only for-profit, Why did Steve Jobs create the iPhone? money. Why isn't the Covid-19 vaccine available to all? money. lives would be saved if there was no money involved. (this video has more detail, Watch this one too if you want)

that is why I think capitalism should end.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Unclaimed

[Winston Gray]

On 8/4/2023 at 3:21 PM, Unclaimed said:

I think capitalism should end, here's why:

    1. Pollution, Capitalists have polluted rivers, streams and the air, they will not stop any time soon if nothing changes.

    2. Inequality, some people can barely afford food, some have massive 4 course meals for themselves, and some are somewhere in the middle, this is just one example of inequality.

    3. Not Democratic, yes, the state might be democratic, but the management of companies is not. workers do not get a say in company policies, sometimes workers are fired without reason. (this video has more detail)

    4. Only for-profit, Why did Steve Jobs create the iPhone? money. Why isn't the Covid-19 vaccine available to all? money. lives would be saved if there was no money involved. (this video has more detail, Watch this one too if you want)

that is why I think capitalism should end.

You got a better idea? Capitalism has provided so many people with jobs and lifted so many people out of poverty. 

Here’s my response to your points:

1. Countless capitalist countries and businesses are investing money into green technologies and finding new ways to reduce pollution, so your point doesn’t really hold any substance.

2. Inequality will always exist. That’s just reality. Demanding that people who tirelessly worked their asses off to become successful give their money to lazy bums who never tried to get better or work their way up is ridiculous.

3. Why should companies have to be managed democratically? Just because there’s one guy at the top doesn’t make it bad. Many of these guys have created hugely successful businesses that have provided many jobs and high quality products and services.

4. That’s literally the point of companies (excluding nonprofits). Most businesses would fold pretty quickly if they weren’t profitable.

And again, do you have a better idea? Please explain it instead of just sending links to videos. Actually provide your own reasoning of a better system.

[Unclaimed]

9 hours ago, Winston Gray said:

You got a better idea? Capitalism has provided so many people with jobs and lifted so many people out of poverty. 

Here’s my response to your points:

1. Countless capitalist countries and businesses are investing money into green technologies and finding new ways to reduce pollution, so your point doesn’t really hold any substance.

2. Inequality will always exist. That’s just reality. Demanding that people who tirelessly worked their asses off to become successful give their money to lazy bums who never tried to get better or work their way up is ridiculous.

3. Why should companies have to be managed democratically? Just because there’s one guy at the top doesn’t make it bad. Many of these guys have created hugely successful businesses that have provided many jobs and high quality products and services.

4. That’s literally the point of companies (excluding nonprofits). Most businesses would fold pretty quickly if they weren’t profitable.

And again, do you have a better idea? Please explain it instead of just sending links to videos. Actually provide your own reasoning of a better system.

WOW you really disagree with the idea of socialism, *ehem*

1. ok sure that might be true but, that is probably to make the consumer happy

2. yes inequality will always exist, that doesn't mean it HAS to be at this extent.

3. some businesses are extremely corrupt, that can be solved with worker democracy. the workers are the one doing the heavy lifting and providing the company with goods to sell so the workers should have a say in company policies. take a good look at r/antiwork and you will understand what i mean.

4. A Soviet hairdryer lasted 40 years and is still not only in working condition, but it is also still good as new. Most phones cant last a few years without something malfunctioning. Plus, hundreds of millions of lives were going to be saved if vaccines were available to all, especially Africa, not just 1st world countries.

 

one more point, the reason us in first world countries can have things like the internet is because of social reforms in the 1900s

 

Also, i am just curious, do a political compass test and send me your results. I am curious what your political stance is.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Unclaimed

[Winston Gray]

1 hour ago, Unclaimed said:

WOW you really disagree with the idea of socialism, *ehem*

1. ok sure that might be true but, that is probably to make the consumer happy

2. yes inequality will always exist, that doesn't mean it HAS to be at this extent.

3. some businesses are extremely corrupt, that can be solved with worker democracy. the workers are the one doing the heavy lifting and providing the company with goods to sell so the workers should have a say in company policies. take a good look at r/antiwork and you will understand what i mean.

4. A Soviet hairdryer lasted 40 years and is still not only in working condition, but it is also still good as new. Most phones cant last a few years without something malfunctioning. Plus, hundreds of millions of lives were going to be saved if vaccines were available to all, especially Africa, not just 1st world countries.

 

one more point, the reason us in first world countries can have things like the internet is because of social reforms in the 1900s

 

Also, i am just curious, do a political compass test and send me your results. I am curious what your political stance is.

1. So are the communist countries doing anything differently?

2. Ok so what? What point are you trying to make?

3. Workers aren’t the only ones doing the heavy lifting. Maybe physically, but it takes an awful lot of work to run a company. Sorry to spoil it for you, but CEOs don’t just sit around all day.

4. This doesn’t actually hold for Africa. Their death rates were surprisingly low, and why? Because their population is very young. People in Africa actually have kids instead of being the arrogant “I don’t want kids” type of person that is far too common in the West. This has resulted in Africa’s birth rate being far higher and their median age being far lower than in the Western world, and guess what? Younger people were far less susceptible to dying from COVID. So because Africa’s population is so young, it wasn’t as severe. Also, “hundreds of millions” of lives would have been saved? I didn’t know that hundreds of millions of people died.

The point about the internet doesn’t make any sense (as in I have no idea what you’re saying). Could you clarify what exactly you’re trying to say?

Let me make one more point (let’s call this number 5), which is that communism doesn’t tolerate freedom at all. Officially an atheist philosophy, communist countries throughout history have vehemently persecuted religion. And not only that, you can advocate for communism in free capitalist countries, but you can’t advocate for communism in capitalist countries. When communism becomes the ruling system of government, opposition to the government is not allowed. The state controls everything.

[Unclaimed]

2 hours ago, Winston Gray said:

1. So are the communist countries doing anything differently?

2. Ok so what? What point are you trying to make?

3. Workers aren’t the only ones doing the heavy lifting. Maybe physically, but it takes an awful lot of work to run a company. Sorry to spoil it for you, but CEOs don’t just sit around all day.

4. This doesn’t actually hold for Africa. Their death rates were surprisingly low, and why? Because their population is very young. People in Africa actually have kids instead of being the arrogant “I don’t want kids” type of person that is far too common in the West. This has resulted in Africa’s birth rate being far higher and their median age being far lower than in the Western world, and guess what? Younger people were far less susceptible to dying from COVID. So because Africa’s population is so young, it wasn’t as severe. Also, “hundreds of millions” of lives would have been saved? I didn’t know that hundreds of millions of people died.

The point about the internet doesn’t make any sense (as in I have no idea what you’re saying). Could you clarify what exactly you’re trying to say?

Let me make one more point (let’s call this number 5), which is that communism doesn’t tolerate freedom at all. Officially an atheist philosophy, communist countries throughout history have vehemently persecuted religion. And not only that, you can advocate for communism in free capitalist countries, but you can’t advocate for communism in capitalist countries. When communism becomes the ruling system of government, opposition to the government is not allowed. The state controls everything.

1. Communist countries often adopt centralized economic planning where the government controls major industries and resources. This differs from the decentralized market-based approach of capitalism. In a Communist system, the government directly owns and manages key sectors such as energy, transportation, and healthcare, aiming to ensure equitable distribution of resources.

2. The point i am trying to make here is, While a degree of inequality is natural, the current extent isn't necessary. The goal is to create a society where basic needs are attainable and opportunities are accessible for all. This doesn't negate personal achievements but rather seeks a better balance, addressing systemic obstacles and ensuring a fairer distribution of resources.

3. I understand that CEOs play a pivotal role in guiding a company's direction and making crucial decisions. It's true that their responsibilities extend beyond the day-to-day operations. However, it's also important to recognize that the vast income disparities between CEOs and workers exist in many cases. The point isn't to disregard the efforts of CEOs, but rather to ensure that compensation reflects the collective contributions of all employees. Collaborative decision-making can help address not only the financial gap but also foster a sense of shared ownership and a more equitable workplace.

4. Indeed, Africa's lower COVID-19 death rates were influenced by its younger population. I apologize for any exaggeration in mentioning 'hundreds of millions' – that was an oversight. However, the core idea is that global vaccine equity could have a significant impact on saving lives in regions with limited healthcare resources. It's about recognizing the potential of accessible vaccines to positively affect vulnerable populations and prevent unnecessary suffering.

 

I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous point. What I meant to convey is that many technological advancements, including the development of the internet, have been facilitated by social reforms that improved education, infrastructure, and access to information. In the context of discussing economic systems, the idea was to show that societal changes and investments can pave the way for technological progress, regardless of the specific economic structure in place. The point is that historical shifts in society have influenced the trajectory of technological innovation, emphasizing the role of broader social factors in driving progress.

 

5. Your point about communism's historical limitations on freedom and religion is valid, but it's important to consider variations in its implementations. Advocating for communism in capitalist countries involves balancing free expression and stability. While certain communist states have restricted freedoms, it's crucial to recognize diverse possibilities within political systems. The conversation should encompass the range of outcomes and potential for balanced governance that respects individual rights.

[Winston Gray]

1 hour ago, Unclaimed said:

1. Communist countries often adopt centralized economic planning where the government controls major industries and resources. This differs from the decentralized market-based approach of capitalism. In a Communist system, the government directly owns and manages key sectors such as energy, transportation, and healthcare, aiming to ensure equitable distribution of resources.

2. The point i am trying to make here is, While a degree of inequality is natural, the current extent isn't necessary. The goal is to create a society where basic needs are attainable and opportunities are accessible for all. This doesn't negate personal achievements but rather seeks a better balance, addressing systemic obstacles and ensuring a fairer distribution of resources.

3. I understand that CEOs play a pivotal role in guiding a company's direction and making crucial decisions. It's true that their responsibilities extend beyond the day-to-day operations. However, it's also important to recognize that the vast income disparities between CEOs and workers exist in many cases. The point isn't to disregard the efforts of CEOs, but rather to ensure that compensation reflects the collective contributions of all employees. Collaborative decision-making can help address not only the financial gap but also foster a sense of shared ownership and a more equitable workplace.

4. Indeed, Africa's lower COVID-19 death rates were influenced by its younger population. I apologize for any exaggeration in mentioning 'hundreds of millions' – that was an oversight. However, the core idea is that global vaccine equity could have a significant impact on saving lives in regions with limited healthcare resources. It's about recognizing the potential of accessible vaccines to positively affect vulnerable populations and prevent unnecessary suffering.

 

I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous point. What I meant to convey is that many technological advancements, including the development of the internet, have been facilitated by social reforms that improved education, infrastructure, and access to information. In the context of discussing economic systems, the idea was to show that societal changes and investments can pave the way for technological progress, regardless of the specific economic structure in place. The point is that historical shifts in society have influenced the trajectory of technological innovation, emphasizing the role of broader social factors in driving progress.

 

5. Your point about communism's historical limitations on freedom and religion is valid, but it's important to consider variations in its implementations. Advocating for communism in capitalist countries involves balancing free expression and stability. While certain communist states have restricted freedoms, it's crucial to recognize diverse possibilities within political systems. The conversation should encompass the range of outcomes and potential for balanced governance that respects individual rights.

1. Yes, they do a good job of providing these services equally to the population-equally terrible for everyone. When has a communist government actually done this well?

2. How do you propose we solve this problem?

3. Yes, of course the CEOs make way more. Why? Because their decisions affect the whole company! The CEO’s decisions hold far more weight than the average worker. There’s a lot more at stake. His job is much more demanding. It makes sense.

4. And capitalism is to blame for “global vaccine inequity?”

5. I don’t really understand your point, but let me list some very common occurrences in communist countries:

a. Communist countries are very often atheist and have little tolerance for religion.

b. Dissent against the government is strictly forbidden and free speech is nonexistent. 

c. You can receive serious punishments for holding ideas that don’t go along with state orthodoxy.

d. There is no freedom of the press. The only allowed media is state sanctioned propaganda.

e. Education from a young age is aimed at indoctrinating children in the ideas of the tolerated state orthodoxy.

f. There are no free elections. The only party allowed to hold power is the Communist Party.

This kind of stuff doesn’t exist in Western capitalist democracies.

[Unclaimed]

1. While it's true that some communist governments have struggled to provide services equally to their populations, I agree that effective implementation is a challenge. However, it's also important to consider that there might be instances where certain social services are provided more equitably, particularly in areas like healthcare and education. The effectiveness of any economic system depends on multiple factors, including governance, resources, and societal context.

2. Solving the problems associated with capitalism or any economic system is a complex task that requires careful consideration. One approach could involve implementing policies that address wealth disparity through progressive taxation, social safety nets, and measures to ensure equal access to opportunities.

3. You're right that CEOs have a demanding role with significant impact on companies. The point I'm trying to make is that incorporating diverse perspectives, including workers', can lead to better decisions and more equitable outcomes. Balancing executive decisions with input from those directly affected can improve corporate culture and decision-making.

4. Capitalism itself isn't solely to blame for global vaccine inequity, but profit-driven motives have sometimes influenced the distribution of life-saving resources. The challenge lies in finding ways to balance incentives for innovation with the ethical responsibility to ensure equitable access to critical healthcare solutions, especially during global crises.

5. ok sure, those are common occurrences in communist countries. It's important to recognize that these issues are often associated with authoritarian implementations of communism. However, it's also worth noting that there are diverse interpretations of these ideologies, and not all communist systems share these traits. Western capitalist democracies and other systems also vary widely in their governance and freedoms.

i forgot to quote @Winston Gray

Edited August 6, 2023 by Unclaimed

[Winston Gray]

17 minutes ago, Unclaimed said:

1. While it's true that some communist governments have struggled to provide services equally to their populations, I agree that effective implementation is a challenge. However, it's also important to consider that there might be instances where certain social services are provided more equitably, particularly in areas like healthcare and education. The effectiveness of any economic system depends on multiple factors, including governance, resources, and societal context.

2. Solving the problems associated with capitalism or any economic system is a complex task that requires careful consideration. One approach could involve implementing policies that address wealth disparity through progressive taxation, social safety nets, and measures to ensure equal access to opportunities.

3. You're right that CEOs have a demanding role with significant impact on companies. The point I'm trying to make is that incorporating diverse perspectives, including workers', can lead to better decisions and more equitable outcomes. Balancing executive decisions with input from those directly affected can improve corporate culture and decision-making.

4. Capitalism itself isn't solely to blame for global vaccine inequity, but profit-driven motives have sometimes influenced the distribution of life-saving resources. The challenge lies in finding ways to balance incentives for innovation with the ethical responsibility to ensure equitable access to critical healthcare solutions, especially during global crises.

5. ok sure, those are common occurrences in communist countries. It's important to recognize that these issues are often associated with authoritarian implementations of communism. However, it's also worth noting that there are diverse interpretations of these ideologies, and not all communist systems share these traits. Western capitalist democracies and other systems also vary widely in their governance and freedoms.

i forgot to quote @Winston Gray

1. What are these certain instances you’re talking about?

2. I don’t see how access to opportunities is solely available to the upper class. Let me also point out that America’s income tax system is very progressive. I believe the bottom 50% of income earners pay 4% in federal income tax, while the top 1% pay 27%. This amounts to the top 1% of income earners paying 40% of all income taxes.

3. Interesting point, but how many people actually have the knowledge and skill required to run a successful business?

4. Ok?

5. Communism is an inherently totalitarian philosophy. Placing everything in the hands of the state is the definition of totalitarianism/authoritarianism. Can you provide an example of a communist country that was/is not authoritarian?

Also, please define the word “equity.” You have used it quite a lot, so I’d like to know what you mean by that.

Oh and btw Unclaimed, I can’t pay your Executive Council salary while you’re in Vacation Mode.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Winston Gray

[Unclaimed]

50 minutes ago, Winston Gray said:

1. What are these certain instances you’re talking about?

2. I don’t see how access to opportunities is solely available to the upper class. Let me also point out that America’s income tax system is very progressive. I believe the bottom 50% of income earners pay 4% in federal income tax, while the top 1% pay 27%. This amounts to the top 1% of income earners paying 40% of all income taxes.

3. Interesting point, but how many people actually have the knowledge and skill required to run a successful business?

4. Ok?

5. Communism is an inherently totalitarian philosophy. Placing everything in the hands of the state is the definition of totalitarianism/authoritarianism. Can you provide an example of a communist country that was/is not authoritarian?

Also, please define the word “equity.” You have used it quite a lot, so I’d like to know what you mean by that.

1. Certainly, specific instances can vary, but in some cases, certain social services like healthcare and education have been provided more evenly across the population. It's important to acknowledge that while not all attempts have succeeded, the potential for more equitable distribution is a principle that can be explored and refined.

2. I appreciate your insight on the progressive nature of the American income tax system. While access to opportunities isn't solely available to the upper class, there are still instances of barriers due to factors like education costs and limited access to quality healthcare. The goal is to continuously improve social mobility and ensure that opportunities are accessible to a wider range of individuals.

3. You're right that running a successful business requires specific skills and knowledge. However, the point isn't that everyone should run a business, but rather that decisions affecting workers and stakeholders should include a broader range of perspectives. Employee input can lead to better decision-making and improved company outcomes.

4. This can lead to situations where vaccines are prioritized for wealthier nations that can afford higher prices, leaving less affluent countries at a disadvantage. While capitalism has contributed to innovation and economic growth, addressing issues like global vaccine distribution might require a balance between profit motives and a collective responsibility to safeguard public health on a global scale. It's about finding ways to incentivize innovation while also ensuring that life-saving resources reach those who need them the most, regardless of their economic circumstances.

5. You bring up an important concern regarding authoritarianism in certain implementations of communism. It's true that historically, some communist countries have exhibited authoritarian tendencies. However, it's also worth noting that interpretations of ideologies can evolve and vary. There are instances of socialist or communist systems that have aimed for a balance between collective interests and individual rights, without necessarily being totalitarian. an example is Chile, but the original socialist government was overthrown by the USA.

Equity:

the quality of being fair and unbiased.

"equity of treatment"

i know, i am currently waiting for vacation mode to wear off

[Winston Gray]

Just now, Unclaimed said:

1. Certainly, specific instances can vary, but in some cases, certain social services like healthcare and education have been provided more evenly across the population. It's important to acknowledge that while not all attempts have succeeded, the potential for more equitable distribution is a principle that can be explored and refined.

2. I appreciate your insight on the progressive nature of the American income tax system. While access to opportunities isn't solely available to the upper class, there are still instances of barriers due to factors like education costs and limited access to quality healthcare. The goal is to continuously improve social mobility and ensure that opportunities are accessible to a wider range of individuals.

3. You're right that running a successful business requires specific skills and knowledge. However, the point isn't that everyone should run a business, but rather that decisions affecting workers and stakeholders should include a broader range of perspectives. Employee input can lead to better decision-making and improved company outcomes.

4. This can lead to situations where vaccines are prioritized for wealthier nations that can afford higher prices, leaving less affluent countries at a disadvantage. While capitalism has contributed to innovation and economic growth, addressing issues like global vaccine distribution might require a balance between profit motives and a collective responsibility to safeguard public health on a global scale. It's about finding ways to incentivize innovation while also ensuring that life-saving resources reach those who need them the most, regardless of their economic circumstances.

5. You bring up an important concern regarding authoritarianism in certain implementations of communism. It's true that historically, some communist countries have exhibited authoritarian tendencies. However, it's also worth noting that interpretations of ideologies can evolve and vary. There are instances of socialist or communist systems that have aimed for a balance between collective interests and individual rights, without necessarily being totalitarian. an example is Chile, but the original socialist government was overthrown by the USA.

Equity:

the quality of being fair and unbiased.

"equity of treatment"

i know, i am currently waiting for vacation mode to wear off

1. Can you provide a concrete example of this?

2. That does make sense. Education (especially college) and healthcare are very expensive these days, and it does seem like things could be done to avert this. I’m not sure that communism is the solution though.

3. So what point are you trying to make then?

4. Many poor countries are poor because of their own governments’ incompetence. Are you suggesting that wealthier countries are to blame for their lack of good healthcare?

5. Chile wasn’t a socialist system, rather, there was a socialist (Salvador Allende) who got elected in a capitalist democracy (which Chile has been for a while). He was quickly overthrown by the US but there was no Communist Party of Chile that had been ruling for decades. Can you name me a country where communism was the way of governing and a communist party was the only one ruling, that wasn’t authoritarian?

[Unclaimed]

15 hours ago, Winston Gray said:

1. Can you provide a concrete example of this?

2. That does make sense. Education (especially college) and healthcare are very expensive these days, and it does seem like things could be done to avert this. I’m not sure that communism is the solution though.

3. So what point are you trying to make then?

4. Many poor countries are poor because of their own governments’ incompetence. Are you suggesting that wealthier countries are to blame for their lack of good healthcare?

5. Chile wasn’t a socialist system, rather, there was a socialist (Salvador Allende) who got elected in a capitalist democracy (which Chile has been for a while). He was quickly overthrown by the US but there was no Communist Party of Chile that had been ruling for decades. Can you name me a country where communism was the way of governing and a communist party was the only one ruling, that wasn’t authoritarian?

1. Certainly, an example could be the pricing of life-saving medications in certain capitalist systems. The profit-driven approach of some pharmaceutical companies has led to high drug prices that can create barriers to access for individuals without sufficient means or proper insurance coverage.

2. I agree that there are legitimate concerns about the affordability of education and healthcare. While communism might not be the sole solution, it's essential to explore policy measures within capitalist systems that can address these issues more effectively. The goal is to strike a balance that ensures essential services are accessible to all citizens without necessarily requiring a complete overhaul of the economic system.

3. Apologies if my previous points seemed disjointed. The main point I'm trying to convey is that economic systems, whether capitalist or socialist, have their strengths and weaknesses. My aim is to discuss the potential for improvements in addressing issues like inequality, access to essential services, and global health equity.

4. You raise a good point about governance playing a role in the economic challenges faced by certain countries. While internal factors contribute to poverty, it's also worth noting that global economic dynamics and historical factors can influence disparities. Wealthier countries could contribute to global health by supporting initiatives that ensure equitable access to healthcare resources, without necessarily taking sole blame for other nations' challenges.

5. One example of a socialist party participating in ruling with free elections is Portugal's Socialist Party (Partido Socialista). Portugal operates within a multi-party parliamentary system, and the Socialist Party has been in power at various times, implementing social welfare policies. This highlights a case where a socialist-oriented party has engaged in governance while upholding democratic principles. The nuances of their policies can vary over time and within the political context. has it been ruling for decades? No. Is it a socialist party in a country with free elections? Yes.

[Winston Gray]

47 minutes ago, Unclaimed said:

1. Certainly, an example could be the pricing of life-saving medications in certain capitalist systems. The profit-driven approach of some pharmaceutical companies has led to high drug prices that can create barriers to access for individuals without sufficient means or proper insurance coverage.

2. I agree that there are legitimate concerns about the affordability of education and healthcare. While communism might not be the sole solution, it's essential to explore policy measures within capitalist systems that can address these issues more effectively. The goal is to strike a balance that ensures essential services are accessible to all citizens without necessarily requiring a complete overhaul of the economic system.

3. Apologies if my previous points seemed disjointed. The main point I'm trying to convey is that economic systems, whether capitalist or socialist, have their strengths and weaknesses. My aim is to discuss the potential for improvements in addressing issues like inequality, access to essential services, and global health equity.

4. You raise a good point about governance playing a role in the economic challenges faced by certain countries. While internal factors contribute to poverty, it's also worth noting that global economic dynamics and historical factors can influence disparities. Wealthier countries could contribute to global health by supporting initiatives that ensure equitable access to healthcare resources, without necessarily taking sole blame for other nations' challenges.

5. One example of a socialist party participating in ruling with free elections is Portugal's Socialist Party (Partido Socialista). Portugal operates within a multi-party parliamentary system, and the Socialist Party has been in power at various times, implementing social welfare policies. This highlights a case where a socialist-oriented party has engaged in governance while upholding democratic principles. The nuances of their policies can vary over time and within the political context. has it been ruling for decades? No. Is it a socialist party in a country with free elections? Yes.

1. I asked for an example of a country where, as you said, social services like education and healthcare have been distributed more evenly across the population, not an example of the opposite.

2. How do you propose we fix this problem?

3. How do you propose we achieve “global health equity?”

4. I do think that in most cases, especially when it comes to Africa, many countries are poor because of their own government. African countries do invade each other sometimes, but, their problems are usually internal: political instability, corruption, government incompetence, etc. If these countries’ governments were actually competent, things would get better (look at Botswana, for instance). Take a look at the DRC. They are sitting on $24 trillion worth of natural resources, and yet their GDP per capita is $584 and the country is one of the world’s poorest. Why? Not the West. Incompetence and corruption on the government’s part.

5. I should clarify my question. Can you name me a communist country where the communist party was/is the only legal ruling party that was/is not authoritarian? Portugal isn’t a communist country and the communist/socialist party wasn’t the only legal ruling party.

[Unclaimed]

9 minutes ago, Winston Gray said:

1. I asked for an example of a country where, as you said, social services like education and healthcare have been distributed more evenly across the population, not an example of the opposite.

2. How do you propose we fix this problem?

3. How do you propose we achieve “global health equity?”

4. I do think that in most cases, especially when it comes to Africa, many countries are poor because of their own government. African countries do invade each other sometimes, but, their problems are usually internal: political instability, corruption, government incompetence, etc. If these countries’ governments were actually competent, things would get better (look at Botswana, for instance). Take a look at the DRC. They are sitting on $24 trillion worth of natural resources, and yet their GDP per capita is $584 and the country is one of the world’s poorest. Why? Not the West. Incompetence and corruption on the government’s part.

5. I should clarify my question. Can you name me a communist country where the communist party was/is the only legal ruling party that was/is not authoritarian? Portugal isn’t a communist country and the communist/socialist party wasn’t the only legal ruling party.

1. I'm sorry for any confusion. An example of a country where social services like education and healthcare have been distributed more evenly across the population is Finland. Finland is often cited for its comprehensive social welfare system, including quality education and healthcare services accessible to all citizens. The Finnish education system is known for its equity-focused approach, where students receive high-quality education regardless of their socioeconomic background. Similarly, Finland's healthcare system emphasizes equal access to medical care, contributing to better health outcomes and reduced disparities. While no system is without challenges, Finland's commitment to equitable social services is often highlighted as a positive model.

2. Addressing the affordability and accessibility of education and healthcare requires comprehensive efforts. Policy measures such as price regulation, government investment, and partnerships between public and private sectors can contribute to a more equitable system.

3. Achieving global health equity is a complex endeavor that requires international cooperation. This can involve initiatives like supporting healthcare infrastructure in developing countries, facilitating technology transfer, and ensuring fair distribution of life-saving resources during global crises.

4. You're correct in pointing out the significance of internal governance challenges in many African countries. Indeed, internal factors like political instability, corruption, and mismanagement play a crucial role in economic outcomes. It's important to acknowledge the complex interplay between internal and external factors in shaping a country's development.

5. Certainly, an example is Vietnam. The Communist Party of Vietnam is the only legal ruling party in the country. However, like many one-party systems, the situation can be complex and interpretations of authoritarianism can vary. While Vietnam's political landscape may exhibit certain restrictions on political freedoms, it also demonstrates elements of economic openness and modernization, which can influence how the regime is perceived in terms of its level of authoritarianism. As with any political analysis, it's important to consider a range of perspectives and sources to form a comprehensive understanding.

[Winston Gray]

2 hours ago, Unclaimed said:

1. I'm sorry for any confusion. An example of a country where social services like education and healthcare have been distributed more evenly across the population is Finland. Finland is often cited for its comprehensive social welfare system, including quality education and healthcare services accessible to all citizens. The Finnish education system is known for its equity-focused approach, where students receive high-quality education regardless of their socioeconomic background. Similarly, Finland's healthcare system emphasizes equal access to medical care, contributing to better health outcomes and reduced disparities. While no system is without challenges, Finland's commitment to equitable social services is often highlighted as a positive model.

2. Addressing the affordability and accessibility of education and healthcare requires comprehensive efforts. Policy measures such as price regulation, government investment, and partnerships between public and private sectors can contribute to a more equitable system.

3. Achieving global health equity is a complex endeavor that requires international cooperation. This can involve initiatives like supporting healthcare infrastructure in developing countries, facilitating technology transfer, and ensuring fair distribution of life-saving resources during global crises.

4. You're correct in pointing out the significance of internal governance challenges in many African countries. Indeed, internal factors like political instability, corruption, and mismanagement play a crucial role in economic outcomes. It's important to acknowledge the complex interplay between internal and external factors in shaping a country's development.

5. Certainly, an example is Vietnam. The Communist Party of Vietnam is the only legal ruling party in the country. However, like many one-party systems, the situation can be complex and interpretations of authoritarianism can vary. While Vietnam's political landscape may exhibit certain restrictions on political freedoms, it also demonstrates elements of economic openness and modernization, which can influence how the regime is perceived in terms of its level of authoritarianism. As with any political analysis, it's important to consider a range of perspectives and sources to form a comprehensive understanding.

1. I’ve heard that before, especially with a lot of European and particularly Scandinavian countries. It’s important to note, though, that these countries are liberal democracies with largely capitalist market economies. And also, these programs require ridiculously high income taxes to fund. Many European countries have income taxes in excess of 50%, which is a huge downside of these social democracies.

2. Makes sense. I’d like to note the government in the US already spends ridiculous amounts of money on education, only to get absolutely no results. My solution to this would be a privatization of the education system, with the government then giving money to families to pay for tuition (more money could be given to lower income families, obviously). This would ensure that the government cannot control education (government education has been a disaster lately), but people can still afford it. A similar system for healthcare could be implemented, with some pricing regulations (although not too heavy). Your thoughts?

3. Could you define “global health equity?”

4. I’m having trouble understanding the point you’re trying to make, but to me it did seem that in past posts, you argued that foreign influence was largely to blame for poor countries being where they are today, and I responded by saying that more often than not, the causes of these issues are internal. Are you acknowledging that what I said was correct?

5. I’d have to do more research on that, but ok. It does seem, at least to me, though, that capitalist-leaning countries are generally more politically free than communist-leaning countries. And as you admitted, Vietnam restricts political freedom.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Winston Gray

[Unclaimed]

20 hours ago, Winston Gray said:

1. I’ve heard that before, especially with a lot of European and particularly Scandinavian countries. It’s important to note, though, that these countries are liberal democracies with largely capitalist market economies. And also, these programs require ridiculously high income taxes to fund. Many European countries have income taxes in excess of 50%, which is a huge downside of these social democracies.

2. Makes sense. I’d like to note the government in the US already spends ridiculous amounts of money on education, only to get absolutely no results. My solution to this would be a privatization of the education system, with the government then giving money to families to pay for tuition (more money could be given to lower income families, obviously). This would ensure that the government cannot control education (government education has been a disaster lately), but people can still afford it. A similar system for healthcare could be implemented, with some pricing regulations (although not too heavy). Your thoughts?

3. Could you define “global health equity?”

4. I’m having trouble understanding the point you’re trying to make, but to me it did seem that in past posts, you argued that foreign influence was largely to blame for poor countries being where they are today, and I responded by saying that more often than not, the causes of these issues are internal. Are you acknowledging that what I said was correct?

5. I’d have to do more research on that, but ok. It does seem, at least to me, though, that capitalist-leaning countries are generally more politically free than communist-leaning countries. And as you admitted, Vietnam restricts political freedom.

1. You're right that many of these successful European countries follow a social democratic model within a largely capitalist framework. The balance between high taxes and social services is indeed a topic of debate. While higher income taxes are a downside for some, proponents argue that they fund essential services and contribute to social stability.

2. Eh... interesting concept, but there might be more to it than just tuition costs. there might be uniforms too, which are ridiculously expensive because 1 company has a monopoly over it. The reason why the education system doesn't go anywhere even with extensive funding is because the schools either spend money on security or useless stuff. Tightening gun laws might help because schools wont need to spend as much on security. Also, some places in America actually have good education (For example, rural Iowa) because they spend little to no money on security.

3. Certainly, global health equity refers to a state where all individuals, regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographical location, have equal access to quality healthcare services, essential medications, and health-related resources.

4. Well, yes and no, internal politics does have a role in the instability of Africa, but colonial powers and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) had/have a role in the instability of the continent too.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Unclaimed

[Winston Gray]

On 8/8/2023 at 8:38 AM, Unclaimed said:

1. You're right that many of these successful European countries follow a social democratic model within a largely capitalist framework. The balance between high taxes and social services is indeed a topic of debate. While higher income taxes are a downside for some, proponents argue that they fund essential services and contribute to social stability.

2. Eh... interesting concept, but there might be more to it than just tuition costs. there might be uniforms too, which are ridiculously expensive because 1 company has a monopoly over it. The reason why the education system doesn't go anywhere even with extensive funding is because the schools either spend money on security or useless stuff. Tightening gun laws might help because schools wont need to spend as much on security. Also, some places in America actually have good education (For example, rural Iowa) because they spend little to no money on security.

3. Certainly, global health equity refers to a state where all individuals, regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographical location, have equal access to quality healthcare services, essential medications, and health-related resources.

4. Well, yes and no, internal politics does have a role in the instability of Africa, but colonial powers and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) had/have a role in the instability of the continent too.

1. The problem with income taxes that high is that you have less control over your money and the government has more. Also, is it really right for the government to take people’s hard earned money?

2. Uniforms are “ridiculously expensive?” What do you mean by this? And what 1 company has a monopoly over them? Finally, what “useless stuff” are you talking about?

3. I don’t really have anything to say on this.

4. How have colonial powers and the IMF impacted Africa after decolonization?

[Unclaimed]

14 hours ago, Winston Gray said:

1. The problem with income taxes that high is that you have less control over your money and the government has more. Also, is it really right for the government to take people’s hard earned money?

2. Uniforms are “ridiculously expensive?” What do you mean by this? And what 1 company has a monopoly over them? Finally, what “useless stuff” are you talking about?

3. I don’t really have anything to say on this.

4. How have colonial powers and the IMF impacted Africa after decolonization?

1. Your concern about high income taxes touches on a fundamental debate: balancing public service funding and individual financial autonomy. This discussion hinges on whether governments can fairly claim a significant share of earnings to support essential services like education and healthcare. While higher taxes enable these services, they can also diminish personal control over income. The challenge lies in finding equilibrium between collective investment for public welfare and preserving citizens' economic independence. This nuanced discourse considers how taxation impacts incentives, economic growth, and societal cohesion, requiring careful consideration of both individual rights and community needs.

2a. This is a summarization of this video, go watch it if you want.

Examining the role of school uniforms in education reveals a historical origin dating back to 1222 in England. The intent behind uniforms is to minimize economic disparities among students by making clothing choices uniform. However, this also restricts students' ability to express their individuality through attire. Research on the impact of uniforms yields mixed findings regarding attendance and grades, indicating that other external factors might contribute to any observed improvements.

Interestingly, studies suggest that the push for uniforms might inadvertently lower students' self-esteem and sense of belonging, as conformity doesn't necessarily foster unity. The concept of standardization in schools, like uniforms, seems to stem from the need for a simplified approach to manage diverse student populations efficiently.

Nonetheless, the adoption of uniforms can often serve the interests of schools' public image more than the well-being of students. They can create an illusion of addressing equality while possibly masking deeper issues of inequality. It's vital to recognize that uniforms don't define one's identity; rather, they are superficial aspects. Ultimately, uniforms aren't a comprehensive solution to educational challenges, as they fail to address underlying complexities within the education system.

2b. By the useless stuff i mean like big TVs, new MacBook's for teachers, etc.

4a. After decolonization, many African nations faced challenges from both historical colonial legacies and the influence of international organizations like the IMF. Some argue that colonial powers left behind a legacy of resource exploitation, political fragmentation, and underdeveloped institutions. The IMF's structural adjustment programs aimed to address economic crises but often required countries to implement policies that had mixed outcomes, including reduced public spending and privatization of key industries. These factors have contributed to Africa's complex post-colonial trajectory.

4b. this is a summarization of this video, go watch it if you want. 

The historical impact of capitalism on wages, human height, and mortality is analyzed in a paper titled "Capitalism, Extreme Poverty, and Global Analysis." The paper challenges the common belief that capitalism led to a decline in extreme poverty, arguing that extreme poverty is not a natural state of humanity but rather a result of social and economic disruptions caused by capitalism. The authors examine data from various regions, including Europe, Latin America, Africa, India, and China.

In Europe, the authors argue that capitalism did not lead to widespread improvements in human welfare. Instead, improvements began only in the mid-20th century with the rise of progressive social movements and state-led policies. The same pattern is observed in Latin America, where colonization and exploitation resulted in declining wages, height, and overall welfare. Similar trends are noted in Africa, India, and China, with improvements in quality of life being linked to socialist movements and public policies rather than capitalism. Some of these countries policies were quickly flipped by the IMF, devastating the quality of life.

The authors stress that capitalism's focus on profit often results in resource exploitation, environmental damage, and unequal distribution of wealth. They advocate for a more nuanced understanding of the historical impact of capitalism on human welfare and encourage readers to read the full article for a comprehensive view of the analysis.

 

[Winston Gray]

2 hours ago, Unclaimed said:

[Insert previous post here]. I won’t fully quote @Unclaimed because I have a lot to say and this post would get too long.

 

1. It does seem like a common misconception that income taxes are necessary to support extensive social programs. I would argue that while it is one way of receiving revenue, there are other ways to make money that can still support financial autonomy. For example, nationalization of natural resource wealth is one way of doing this. If the government were own, or at least part own, a stake in the mining/extraction industry, it would allow for them to generate revenue and provide jobs while also providing an alternate source of income without taxing people’s hard earned money. Essentially, the money you earn through your own hard work should stay in your pockets, not go to the government.

2. First of all, you didn’t answer either of my questions. I asked you what you meant when you said that uniforms were ridiculously expensive. And I asked you which company had a monopoly over school uniforms, since you claimed that one company did. So do you mind answering them?

And to be honest, if not being able to “express themselves through attire” at school drops students’ attendance and grades, that sounds like the students’ problem, not the uniform. In today’s day and age, students, and teenagers especially, give off the impression that it’s in their DNA to be depressed and mentally unwell. This comes at a time when kids are more undisciplined than ever. It does appear that wearing a uniform does increase discipline, and being disciplined and in control of emotions rather than being fragile and down about not being able to wear whatever you want does seem like it will lead to greater happiness. My point is that being open to self-discipline rather than allowing it to affect you negatively is better for your mind.

And yes, I do think that electronics are used too much and too often in the present-day school system, but teachers still use them for things like saving documents, posting grades, and other essential tasks. And you want these computers to be functional so that these tasks can be performed. So buying new ones doesn’t seem wholly unnecessary.

4. First of all, allow me to briefly address your point about human height. While it may have decreased in certain small time periods in certain areas of the world, overall, average height has dramatically increased in the last 200 years, so in the long term, I don’t know that your point holds all that much substance. For example, we today think of Napoleon as a “short king,” but in his day, he was average height. Nowadays, 5’6” would not be considered average in most European countries.

Allow me to point out that in Europe, which has embraced more government intervention into everyday life, has been significantly less economically productive than the USA, which is more deregulated. To clarify, the US alone has a GDP larger than that of the entire EU combined, but with a smaller population.

Let’s take a quick look at the Río San Juan. To the river’s north lies the country of Nicaragua. This country has been under the authoritarian rule of the socialist Daniel Ortega for close to 40 years. It is one of the poorest countries in the region and has little freedom or prosperity. Ortega has also been extremely hostile towards the Catholic Church. Catholicism is the dominant religion in Latin America and a large percentage of Latin Americans are devout Catholics. The Nicaraguan government recently sentenced the Catholic Bishop Rolando Alvarez to 26 years in prison. Why? For being an “enemy of the state.” Textbook socialist nonsense. Overall, Nicaragua is not a welcoming or safe place to live.

However, the scene to the south of the Río San Juan is quite different. The country on Nicaragua’s southern border is Costa Rica, one of the best countries in Central and Latin America. While it is not by any means perfect, Costa Ricans generally enjoy a decent standard of living and its GDP per capita is on par with China. The country is a capitalist market system with a flourishing tourism sector (I mean come on, the beaches are amazing). And not only that, Costa Rica’s environmental performance is excellent (interesting, considering your claim that capitalism causes pollution). But the thing that truly sets it apart from other Latin American countries is its highly stable democracy. Costa Rican elections are free, fair, and efficient (they usually know the results of the election within two hours after the polls close). And Costa Rican presidents (while they don’t have term limits) are not allowed to be re-elected for consecutive terms, which is an excellent safeguard against authoritarian dictators ruling uninterrupted for decades.

Overall, capitalism did not make Latin America poor by any means. Just look at Venezuela. When it was a capitalist economy, it was one of the most powerful economies in the world. And yes, the wealth was highly concentrated in the upper class, but when Hugo Chavez came along and turned it into a socialist country, things got a whole lot worse. Inflation went through the roof and the general population plunged into poverty. Today, Venezuela is down there with Nicaragua as one of the worst places to live in Latin America.

No, it was not capitalism, rather (not unlike Africa), it was bad government. Many Latin American countries have had a history of oppressive military dictatorships and coups or just dictatorships in general, such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Argentina, and whatnot. In other countries, the governments have allowed gangs and drug cartels to roam free, terrorizing the population while the government does nothing. This is the case in countries like Mexico, Honduras, and Colombia, and was also the case in El Salvador until President Nayib Bukele came in and said enough is enough (this is an interesting story, I encourage you to check it out).

In India and China, I would also have to disagree. I did some research on India and found that the country used to struggle greatly from extremely heavy government regulations. The government’s regulations on businesses and starting businesses were so intense that most people decided to just start illegal street businesses without complying with any regulations and bribe government officials when needed. Things started getting better only when regulations were relaxed.

And how can you honestly claim that socialism improved China’s quality of life? When Mao Zedong implemented the Great Leap Forward, which was in every way possible a socialist program, it failed miserably, caused a massive famine, and led to millions upon millions of deaths. His socialist “Cultural Revolution” also led to many, many people being murdered for holding unacceptable opinions. When Deng Xiaoping (I hope I didn’t misspell that) came into power, he implemented more capitalist reforms and steered China in the direction of a more mixed economy. These (somewhat) capitalistic economic reforms are what kickstarted China’s economic miracle.

Overall, this was very long, but I do think that you should consider being more open instead of blaming capitalism for the world’s problems. Socialism has caused lots of deaths and hardship and has done far more harm than good.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Winston Gray
Stupid auto correct

[Zim]

To be frank, i do see capitalism being fairly self destructive, in more then one way.

As a economic system i see it in automation. Technology inovation that lead to freeing up workers from food production, was what made capitalism into the world dominating economic system.
Capitalism is still a fairly young system, with it not being to many decades since the majority of the world population was employed in agriculture.
With rise of Industry, we started taking steps towards automation, to reduce the amount of workers, and time a task required before it done. 
Which is a process we have never stopped doing.
And now we at a point where we have data, a limitless source of value, that can make machines without human imput, that perform task faster and better then humans.
Capitalism will keep pushing for automation, to save on cost and increase efficiency. Now what happens, when a large part of the labour force is no longer needed to work, like when we start hitting 10-20% unemployment rate. 
Not because of fault of their own, you can of try to reeducate them of course for new jobs. But how long before does jobs get turned over to the machines.
And now, we have a large and increasing part of the population unable to find work, that means they don't get a salery, which means they have no money to spend. Eroding profit from business.

That is when universal bacis income start to look real good, together with reducing the maximum amount of work hours people can work. You don't want people starving, you don't want crime out of control, or mass riots in the streets, or companies declaring bankruptcy over losing their enitre customer base.
You saw how a positiv impact stimulus payments had on the economy doing covid. A new check each months, and the economy would soon be boombing like never before. As people would have money to buy stuff from the economy. 

But with universal bacis income you also starting to reach the death scream of capitalism, because now people don't need to work to live anymore. Giving an enormous amount of power to the workers. With companies having to increase their benefits to keep people employed, atleast the few jobs that can't be automated. 
While Space minning, can possible push us towards a post-scarcity society. And than you start eliminating the point of money at all. 

Of course Capitalism having been taking this lying down either. We see it in the creation of bull----jobs. Where the job themselves generate no value, but that they have money to use in economy is what is importent, entire companies, who don't produce anything but is instead focused on gambling on debt and stocks. And when they make a lossing bet, the goverment will bail them out with tax money. 

The inflated importances put into the stocksmarket, it's deregulation in the 70's and 80's, that still !@#$ the global economy. So it keep going up, even when the rest of economcy seems to be collapsing. And payouts to investors is put before a companies long term growth. When bonds that kept produtives saleries connected was ripped apart, globalization moving jobs abroad in gambles of short term cost servings, to be abused by China in the long term. While serving the connection a company used to have with their local communities. 
Continuously reducting of workhours, was put on hold, with slaries stagnating, with every oppitunity used to squeeze as much short term profit as possible.

Capitalism is a great system, when it's regulated. if not, then business dosen't mind sacrificing the health and lives of it own workers for profit, buying ressources that use child labour, or posion the local drinking water with polution, or the air you breath, or using literally slaves, or selling weapons and equipement that countries are activilily using it to commit genocide.
It wasen't with their good wild that we started having days free from work, the weekend was something workers had to fight for, or workdays that didn't last 12-14 hours. 
Similar if you want to use capitialism to raise the living standard of the many you need it to be regulated, or atleast allow the workers to form unions to strenghten their position. 
Else buisness will be looking to squeeze out as much value from your work as possible, capitalism will never in good faith pay someone the full value that their labour is worth. Else there wouldn't be any profit. 

Regulated capitalism is the best system we tried so far, but when automation take over i do really hope we start switching over to universal basic income, because the other alternatives are worse.
But on the other hand, i don't believe pure socialisme is a good system for us right now. the tech for it to work dosen't excist yet. Of course that shouldn't stop countries from pushing towards a model similar to the nordic countries, that does seems to have found the best ways to regulate capitaslime.

[Razu]

Yea, if some oligarchs with enough capital won't do something to stop global warming we all will die in 7~ years.

[Dopes]

On 8/15/2023 at 5:40 AM, Razu said:

Yea, if some oligarchs with enough capital won't do something to stop global warming we all will die in 7~ years.

They've been saying that since like the 80's dude.

[Winston Gray]

On 8/15/2023 at 4:40 AM, Razu said:

Yea, if some oligarchs with enough capital won't do something to stop global warming we all will die in 7~ years.

Fearmongering alert. This is what the media and activists want you to believe. In reality, it’s all BS.

[Dopes]

The Earth has been far hotter than it is now in the past. Global warming is just a natural cycle. Granted we may have slightly effected it but it's still normal

[Razu]

No, because I did some research and concluded that this is what will happen. Never seen "the media" and "lizard people" talk about it

[Winston Gray]

1 hour ago, Razu said:

No, because I did some research and concluded that this is what will happen. Never seen "the media" and "lizard people" talk about it

The people who are vigorously pushing the narrative that you were arguing for are not experienced, smart, and respected scientists. They are politicians, globalist elites, activists, and the media.