I think this hit the nail on the head. The events in the picture aren't all "caused by" capitalism but could be said to have occured under capitalism. To claim that capitalism caused them all is ignorant and I think that's the point of the image: it is parodying the ignorance of claiming that atrocities under any economic system should be 'explained away' as if they are necessary tenets of that system. Just like saying that historic scientific advancements (or slightly closer to home, centuries of very slow development) in religious states were in some way inspired by the religious state.
Of course that is only my interpretation and anyway, as others have correctly stated, this isn't a debate thread.
Just keep in mind that capitalism is a social system.
Regarding the poster, while there is indeed a couple of doubtful claims there, I think that it is on the whole one that should be kept in mind next time one wants to rave about the blessings of capitalism.
My question is as follows: to what extent if any do you believe that a factory/business etc could be run by a workers' council in a present-day capitalist society? That is to ask, could a successful company convert tomorrow to having, say, its "manager" a directly elected and recallable worker or group of workers (or the entirety of the workers) and still survive?
I think that it would work out well. The recent experiences from Argentina has for instance been encouraging.
Communism, did not kill millions, Stalin and Mao did. And Luce or Cheezy to do not espouse these views.
I have no problems with recognizing crimes commited by socialist states.
However I think that they are :
- Blown out of proportions
- Paling compared to those of capitalism, both quantitatively and qualitatively
- Taking out of historical context. Very few seem to have any knowledge about the history of countries like Russia and China before the revolutions, very few seem to know much about what enormous difficulties the revolutionairies faced after having come to power.
Personally I am neither an expert on Chinese history, nor was I ever a maoist. My feelings for Mao Zedong are mixed at best, even if nobdy shall be able to convince me about the blessings of pre-revolutionary China.
Regarding Stalin though, I admit that he has my respect even if there is no way one can deny some of the things he did was atrocious. But as I explained earlier on this thread, I think the good he did outweighed the bad. I maintain that he is the greatest champion the working-class ever had. I also think that he is due for a reassessment by historians. I don't expect many here to ever agree with this, but that is OK.
With the above posts in mind, do you view the current trend of non-Communistic Governments recent attempts to garner greater control over banks and financial institutions, as well as Governmental policies designed to curb monetary excesses in an attempt to stall the current financial credit crisis, as well as a means to ensure it doesn't repeat itself, as a step away from traditional capitalistic tendencies and towards a more Governmentally controlled one?
Which whilst is a long way away from Communism, it's interesting to note that no-one is really disagreeing with the Government needing to take greater control over financial institutions; rather, people are wanting the Government to control of things to a greater degree. This, I think is food for thought about where the Government will be in another 20-30 years time.
I am not so optimistic about this.
The so-called nationalisation here is done to help out the ruling class. it has not much to do with socialism and it has been seen before.
I am old enough to remember the bank crisis in my country. What happened then is that the government took over the banks when they couldn't run them themselves and nicely handed them back again to the private owners later. It was a classic example on how modern capitalism is really socialism for the rich; expenses are socialised, profits are privatised.
That said, this crisis might of course have made the public realising clearer the inadequacy, injustice and unstability of the capitalist system. But it is rather a long road from there to a majority demand for socialism.
Then again, sudden social changes do sometimes come unexpected. But I stand by my
claim that no advanced capitalist country will turn into a fully-fledged one as long as I live.
It is, in effect, gambling. It creates huge fortunes for people who do nothing more than move money around. Further, it has destroyed the purpose of stock ownership, which can be one method of employee involvement in the company.
QFT.
. After a while of bickering and arguing we decided that the conversation couldn't continue until we effectively defined "socialism."
i still feel that i know the material quite well. AS far as i think on this, i believe that socialism has been overused to describe a lot of policies that seemed similar to socialism, but really had little to do with the actual original movement. I would stress that socialism calls for economic intervention, but it is very specific in what the government is to intervene against and the ways it is going to intervene (if one uses marx's ten points as socialist guidlines), but today we simply loosely use the term socialism to describe any policy that has the government intervene in the economy for the benefit of the people (again arguable because marx says a socialist would always support all forms of governemt action to help and uplift the working class). How is it that you guys define socialism, and what it takes to be a true socialist?
If he had bothered to read the OP he would have seen that it is exactly my bloody, exclusive right to decide who answers in this particular thread.
