Reason #12,033,343,343,01 why capitalism sucks
After a global campaign was launched to boycott Dunkin’ Donuts for its bigotted removal of a commercial featuring one Rachael Ray wearing a scarf that looked a little too Arab (see: “Dunkin’ Zionuts“) the reaction from the UAE’s Dunkin’ Donuts regional offices is not surprising in the least. If they would have supported the boycott I think I would have had real hope that Palestine would be free within my lifetime. Or, at the very least, that the Israelis would let Fadi’s ass back in sometime this decade.
Instead (of course), the UAE’s Dunkin’ Donuts regional offices justify their support of dropping the ad with a delicious, “From a business point of view… It’s the smart thing to do.”
Gotta love them over at the United ARAB Emirates. But another example of how capitalism stopped being just about money a long time ago. Capitalism is not about selling things or buying things; it’s about how we treat each other. Its logic — the logic of greed, individualism and excess — defines our everyday morality, and in turn, eats our spines until there’s nothing left to take a stand with.
US chain in region ‘not to blame’
DUBAI: Boycotting Dunkin’ Donuts in the region would amount to punishing a blameless party, said a representative of the doughnut chain following calls for a global boycott due to its perceived succumbing to anti-Arab sentiments in the US.
Dunkin’ Donuts has been at the centre of a heated controversy for withdrawing an advertisement featuring celebrity chef Rachael Ray wearing a scarf that looks like the Arab ghutra, known in Palestine as the kafiyyah.
The decision to withdraw the advertisement came after right-wing bloggers in the US criticised the chain for “supporting terrorism” by dressing Ray in the scarf, which one blogger called “jihad chic”.
Following the removal, US-based anti-war group Answer launched a global boycott campaign against Dunkin’ Donuts.
While defending the decision by Dunkin’ Donuts to withdraw the advertisement, David Rogers, general manager of Dunkin’ Donuts for the UAE and Kuwait, said the chain’s regional offices have no say over what the head office in the United States does.
“We support their decision [to withdraw the advertisement] from a business point of view … any business would do it. It’s the smart thing to do,” said Rogers. “We would be penalised for something we have no say over.”
The group Answer said in a statement that the global boycott would “send a powerful message to Dunkin’ Donuts and other corporations who engage in racism or pandering to anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racists”.
From GulfNews.com
So what do you propose in place of capitalism? It’s easy to bitch and moan from the confines of a University, and that’s what it seems you’re best at.
Basically, you think capitalism sucks because people have the right to disagree with you (the nerve!). If you have some good ideas, then let’s hear it. Until then, you’re anti-capitalism, anti-borders, and generally anti anything that doesn’t fit into your pre-conceived world view.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the logic of capitalism isn’t encapsulated by greed, individualism, and excess. Are those components? Sure. But so are the notions of innovation, creativity, and charity.
Your simplified view of the world results in arguments that are just that – simple and incomplete.
Complaining doesn’t = intelligent.
Can we get rid of anonymous posting already Will? I’d really like to respond to this cocksucker but I’ve made it a rule not to reply to anonyasses.
Yea,
Anonymous doesn’t = dialogue. Step away, coward.
If you wanna respond, then respond. And I’m a cocksucker, apparently. You win that round.
My name is Bonty, my name is anonymous, my name is Michael. What’s the difference? Address the issues, not the monikers.
QuiQui, I’d echo about 95% of the sentiments that ‘Anonymous’ wrote in his original post, and I’m not anonymous. Also, his comments were a bit strident, maybe, but they were a legitimate position to start a debate from — calling him a ‘cocksucker’ isn’t a terribly classy rebuttal.
(And a bit homophobic, I might add… is there something *wrong* with being, well, a cocksucker?)
Which specific policies are you suggesting we change (and please, something more detailed than the lazy one-sentence answer of ‘all of them!’), how would those changes constitute an end to capitalism rather than the perfection of it, and how would your non-capitalist system function in a superior way to capitalism?
And, just for kicks… what’s your experience in the private sector? No need for specific company names, but generally speaking, what sort of work have you been involved in?
Joe:
1) Of COURSE you agree with anonymous. You’re an ass.
2) I always find it interesting when people take “cocksucker” literally. Also, why does “cocksucker” HAVE to be homophobic? “Cocksucker” can be a description of heterosexuals, homosexuals and very flexible asexuals. How do we know anonyass is male? We don’t know. We know nothing about that fool although she or he purports to know about me, which is why I won’t engage. I am on a campaign to get anonymous removed from KABOBfest. I could do it, too. I have admin rights. But I’m not totalitarian like that.
3) Second, I don’t see how experience in the private sector is relevant and so I won’t bother answering unless you convince me otherwise.
4) Did your 95% include the thing about how capitalism is about “charity?” Because if so, I think. I am going. To hurl.
5) As for innovation and creativity… Absolutely. Yes. Capitalism seeks innovative ways to crush (and even kill) anything (or anyone) standing in the way of its expansion. It is a system that thrives off of inequality and could not survive in a world without misery. Misery is NECESSARY. Poverty is NECESSARY. Injustice is NECESSARY. These are traits that have come to define not only how we do business but how we live and interact with each other in our every day lives. We have come to accept that an unequal existence is okay. We actually believe that poverty is a natural way of life. If someone is rich it’s because it came through hard work. Never from violence. Never from dispossession. Never from slave-holding. These are most often the real truths of it all.
6) Why must there be just one system to choose from? Such a failure of imagination on your part. Further, I can’t understand why We must come up with something for everyone else to do? That’s so… so… colonial. (BTW: Colonialism… not so great either)How about everyone or get to determine how they best want to live? How about we leave people to be? How about we stop telling other people what to do? How about we fix ourselves first?
The choice to choose is impossible within a capitalist framework. It is but one of many contradictions inherent to the system itself — one that is sold on individuality and freedom. It is a system that must expand and ultimately cannot allow other possibilities. It keeps the masses subjugated and dependent on it for their own survival, making it difficult for anyone to choose another way to live — all the while its steals from them their creativity in order to continue said expansion. Capitalism must expand. Captitalism is characterized by its expansion and it is in these ways that capitalism is NECESSARILY innovative and creative. Absolutely.
The kuffiyah: creativity stolen from the Arab peoples and innovatively subsumed under capitalism in ways that are tamed to look less threatening. Example: its adornment by white (read: civilized) faces, its cost ranging anywhere from $18 – $7000 a pop at a Western retail outlet or high-end fashion designer’s collection who sometimes change it to pink, purple or even (what’s the new one now?) “paisley”.
QuiQui:
1) I guess if people disagree with you they’re assholes and cocksukers? Nice.
2) You’re a regular blogger on a well-known website, so of course I know more about you than you know about me. That’s how this thing works. I find it interesting how you attempt to put a personal spin on things when we should be debating the issues and ideas, not who knows more about who.
3) You have the rights to change the comment system? Who cares. I don’t get what you’re trying to brag about.
4) Lastly, you failed to address any of the points raised. I’m not sure if this is due to anger or a lack of knowledge, but either way, your answer is revealing in its general emptiness. All you’re doing is shouting and bitching. You make broad sweeping statements that aren’t backed up by any facts or figures, and it sounds like you’re just regurgitating ideas you read in a book.
Poverty, misery, and inequality are NECESSARY for capitalism? It’d be in your best interest to expand on that – otherwise you just sound like a lunatic shouting slogans.
And again, what type of system would you prefer to live under? I’m curious. Anarchy perhaps?
Here’s a few arguments in favor of capitalism. Not a completely original creation by me, I just don’t have the time to find the original sources. It’s more of a collection overall of several different viewpoints that may give people a different perspective. Reading the Selfish Gene might help to facillitate the understanding of this argument, but it is an unecessary prerequisite.
For one thing capitalism does create disparities in wealth, but this in an of itself is not necessarily indicative of something sinister. Here’s an example.
Let’s say for simplicity sake that you live in a town with a population of 1001 people. Let’s also assume to start out with, each person has 10 dollars. Now let’s say that one person decides to put on a piano concert and charges a dollar per person for an entrance fee. Let’s also say that everybody in town decides to pay the dollar in order to see the concert. So what happens when the concert is over? You end up having a huge imbalance in wealth where one person has 1010 dollars and everyone else has only 9 dollars. This can appear unfair, but in reality it isn’t. The people in the town willingly paid the money in order to recieve a service. This is in essence what happens in capitalism.
In capitalism you have companies and employees. Each employee seeks to maximize his benefit. The employee is selfish in the sense that he wants to make the most amount of money for the least amount of work. The company conversely is also an entity that wants to pay its employee the lowest amount of money, while getting the most amount of work from that employee. The company in essence is just as “selfish” as the employee. However in a capitalist system, you also have other companies competing with each other. So if an employee thinks he isn’t getting enough compensation for his work, he can go work at another company. If a company thinks an employee is not doing enough work for them, the company can fire them. So capitalism, sometimes, can look cruel when in reality it is able to keep both employee’s and company’s inherent selfishness in check. To try to eliminate the “means of production” isn’t possible seeing as most wealth is created by people. Even machines still ultimately require human operators to keep them running. People tend to attribute capitalism as being selfish but that is not the case. It’s human nature that is selfish. Capitalism is one of the few systems that can actually circumvent that selfishness and improve people’s financial outcomes overall.
Here is the problem with socialism. Now taxes can end up benefiting an individual if they are put to uses that are directly applicable to the taxed person’s wellbeing. Roads, water, etc. are all benefits of living in a society. However there comes a point when taxes become too high and end up being a burden on a person. An example of this would be the welfare state in Europe. What happens in welfare? There are certain qualifications you must have to be on welfare. Usually poor or disabled. Because people want to maximize the amount of money they get by doing the least amount of work, this type of system encourages bad outcomes. For one thing, it encourages the poor to immigrate to a welfare state. We can see this in Europe where there is a large immigrant population who is disproportionately on welfare. Since wealthier people are taxed at a high rate, it is in their own interests to move to another country with lower taxes. Again the wealthier are “selfish” only in the sense that they want to keep the greatest amount of their own money for the least amount of work. People will utilize welfare, as well for selfish reasons in order to maximize their own benefit. They also want to get the most amount of money for the least amount of work. The welfare state allows them to have a better life on someone elses money. It also encourages people to work below their capabilities seeing as the welfare state provides for them.
Communism is similar. We can see what has happened in most communist countries. Significantly less wealth is produced overall because people do not have any incentive to work. They will naturally attempt to do the least amount of work when wealth is evenly redistributed by the government. Another thing is that in communism you have a single government entity employing everyone. The government is again “selfish” in the sense that it wants to give its own workers the least amount of money possible for the most amount of work. We can see this type of outcome happening in Cuba where doctors make around 20 dollars a month. Thus there is no competition so the selfishness of humans and the government is allowed to run unchecked. However, since everyone is equal it may appear more “fair” than capitalism but people are worse off overall because less wealth is produced.
Thus as a government, socialism/communism is not sustainable because it goes against the laws of nature. You can’t expect people to selflessly work for others against their will. This is why I believe that this type of government has failed in the past, and will fail if it is attempted on any scale. A government is ultimately composed of people. My main thing to take away from this it is not necessarily capitalism or socialism that is selfish, but human nature.
QuiQui:
1) What, exactly, are you basing this on, other than that I disagree with you? From what I remember, the handful of interactions we’ve had have been fairly pleasant.
2) This semantic explanation is too cute by half, much like the people who argue that using the term ‘gay’ as a synonym for ‘stupid’ isn’t mildly homophobic, because the original meaning of ‘gay’ was unrelated to homosexuality.
The widespread use of the term “cocksucker” as an insult contributes to the culture of homophobia, just as using “pussy” as an insult contributes to the culture of sexism.
3) It’s not a be-all, end-all, but it matters because to some degree, “Where you stand depends on where you sit”. A life spent in institutions somewhat removed from the workings of capitalism (such as a life spent primarily in academia) can affect your objectivity in assessing the nature and extent of imperfections in capitalism and its institutions. This is why critiques ‘from within’, such as Joseph Stiglitz’s “Globalization and its Discontents”, tend to be more persuasive and carry greater weight.
4) Well, let’s look at what he wrote:
“”
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the logic of capitalism isn’t encapsulated by greed, individualism, and excess. Are those components? Sure. But so are the notions of innovation, creativity, and charity.”"
So greed, individualism, and excess, as well as notions of innovation, creativity, and charity, are all part of the capitalist system.
This strikes me as one of the least controversial things he wrote?
Examples of notions of charity as a component of the capitalist system: Widespread charitable giving by Americans (so widespread that we could certainly call it ‘systemic’), the American tradition of tycoon philanthropy (Carnegie and Rockefeller on down to Gates and Buffett), hell, the preferential tax status given to non-profits and charities.
And that’s just off the top of my head. Sure seems like enough to qualify for ‘component’ status to me.
“”How about everyone or get to determine how they best want to live? “”
This is precisely what capitalism and constitutionally-limited government allows for. Without them, people take a much *greater* control over one another’s lives and actions. It’s no coincidence that, ceteris paribus, capitalist countries tend to be more respectful of the rights of women, gays and lesbians, minorities, blasphemers, heretics, and generally unpopular people than non-capitalist countries.
Moatz,
Little to zero thinking here, no?
These examples you’ve provided in defense of capitalism and as illustrations of other systems are, with all due respect, ridiculous and overly simplistic. The only thing they prove is that whoever wrote it had no understanding of what capitalism, socialism or communism are. Since any of these examples are not yours you shouldn’t take offense but are certainly not exonerated from not thinking for yourself.
I plea that you come up with your own thoughts by teasing things out in your own head before defending anything. There are difficult questions to be asked of a system you’ve been asked to accept as the way of human nature.
The human nature-as-greed argument has long been debunked. You and those who claim its validity have no proof that it’s true other than you read it somewhere. There are millions of people on the planet who don’t live by the dictates of selfish greed. On a micro scale, most peoples’ parents wouldn’t fit under this rubric — unless your parents charged you rent from the day you were born, for example. On a larger scale, there exist entire groups of people whose survival depends on a communal structure. On the grandest of scale, the planet, shouldn’t we acknowledge how important respecting other peoples’ lives, particularly when our activities in one place inflict environmental disasters on other place of the world? Or will you respond only when such events like global warming are spoken to you in the language of self-interest, triggering your so-called “selfish gene”?
I wonder if maybe you’ve never met an unselfish person. Perhaps you’re simply translating your own interpretation of life as everyone else’s. It’s easier to do that than to accept that people are more nuanced, more complex and may I say, much smarter(!) than that.
I know that you’ve commented on here before. (I think only Lebanon interests you.) So I’d be interested to know from you — I think you’re a Liberal, no — how you can justify the freedoms and equalities you’ve asked the ideal Lebanese state to afford you with, with the exclusionary measures and inequalities inherent in your preferred economic system.
Or… perhaps, you can’t. Perhaps you play the “selfish gene” card with your outlooks on life. If so, easy cop out. It would be fine with me if choices like these only affected those who championed them, but unfortunately, they are necessarily contingent on the existence of large-scale misery which I will not accept. Call it my own “selfish gene” if that’s the only way you’re able to understand me.
Joe:
I don’t remember having any previous interactions with you. I think it’s safe to say that in my life you’ve been quite ineffectual.
I highly doubt anything is going to change your mind. The private sector firms I have worked for include AOL Time Warner, IBM, Viacom and the U.S. Congress — the mother of all private sector jobs. Also, I received a degree in capitalism and the internets after majoring in Business Administration and Information Systems as an undergrad.
Fahem?
The rest of your response you can find in my reply to Moataz.
Qui qui
For me it boils down to human nature. Capitalism mines human desire for the benefit of society. Socialism uses tyranny to accomplish the same thing. I can see all kinds of abuses and suffering happening in the world and it is sad. However, I am not going to force the rest of the world to do what I (stress on I) think is the best for them. Because I do not know what is best for everyone. To me that is what socialism boils down to, a bunch of elitists telling everyone else what is best for them and society. I like the natural aspects of capitalism and libertarianism. Create a fair legal framework and then let the chips fall where they may.No one should be coerced into accepting someone else’s idea of a perfect society.
There’s is also a common perception that a pure system of Capitalism (which has never been given a chance to exist) would degenerate into a dog-eat-dog kind of world; ultimately, no one would care about anyone but themselves. It’s a perception that was fueled by the stories of hardship when Capitalism first started to take hold in America, and it’s a perception that can be easily corrected by advanced modern educational and organizational systems and methods, in lieu of State-run institutions and programs.When run by the right people capitalism can be caring, unlike the popular opinion of it makes it out to be. Its just a matter of giving it time to work, and getting the ‘right’ people to influence its running.No one treats anyone badly in the race for Capital. People have and make choices.
you sounded quite bitter in your reply.
salam
Qui Qui:
Injustice and Misery exist in Capitalist societies, but that doesn’t mean there’s a causal relationship. And again, you’re just bashing other people’s arguments and going off on tangential points instead of actually responding to the points raised. And I find it ironic that you criticize others for lacking in original thought when you come across as a female version of the pony tailed blond kid from Good Will Hunting.
If anyone exhibits a dire lack of knowledge as to what capitalism is, it’s you. All you seem to be capable of saying is that it sucks because you don’t like it. I look forward to you actually suggesting a better alternative to capitalism and not changing the subject to discuss such matters as the phrase ‘cocksucker’.
Moataz:
What exactly are you basing your analysis of socialism on? The bureaucratic capitalism in the USSR? Tell me you’re kidding me. I thought I was done with these sorts of debates. I know it might scare you, but reading a little bit of Karl Marx might do you good. It’s okay… he won’t bite. He’s actually quite funny and hella sarcastic. It’s simple and you can start now as you can retrieve all of his works completely for (gasp!) FREE.
http://www.marxists.org
Amer:
I have responded to all of the points made. Please scroll up and reread if you need to. Such is the beauty of the Internets.
I would love to hear your analysis on how there is not a causal relationship between capitalism and misery. “Injustice and Misery exist… but that doesn’t mean there’s a causal relationship” is not an argued argument.
Add yourself to every one else on here who has fully admitted that misery is characteristic in capitalist societies. Feel free now, to add yourself to the enormous amounts of people who have stopped making excuses for this and have instead, taken a moment to sit back and wonder why that is so.
I have no idea who the pony tailed blonde kid is in Good Will Hunting. That movie came out while I was acing Economics in business school, and I remember that I didn’t like it very much.
—-
P.S. Forgive me for essentializing your Arabic names Amer and Moataz, but I’m curious to know how you (lovers and defenders of capitalism) stand on the Palestine/Israel conflict. I know your buddy Joe’s take on it and it falls completely in line with the Liberal, capitalist politics he’s outlined above.
Several things:
1) I never said I was some major force in your life, just that we’d had a couple of interactions (online), and that my status as an ‘ass’ was new.
2) Fair enough, you’ve got private sector experience. (Though putting Congress under ‘private sector’ is a bit rich. ;p Once you make chief of staff after 6-8 years you can literally set your own salary).
I don’t think your response to Moataz addressed my points… it was scattershot, and isn’t laying out any case in a systematic manner.
I also think it’s ridiculous to equate Marxist analysis with a rejection of capitalism. Plenty of people (Christopher Hitchens springs to mind as a prominent example) accept the validity of many aspects of Marxist analysis while still concluding that capitalism makes the best sense of any system running right now.
Regarding misery: Misery is characteristic of human society in general, not merely any given economic system. Very few nations have managed to lessen the misery of its citizens as ours have. I’m curious which non-capitalist societies you hold as a model for ‘misery alleviation? And I’m also curious what lessons you take away from the Israeli kibbutzim shifting, over time, from more collectivist to capitalist arrangements.
(Oh, and since you mentioned Israel/Palestine, another question pops to mind — Assuming the Palestinians had won 60 years ago and the nakba had never happened, do you think the resulting Palestinian state today would be more, or less, free than Israel is?)
Qui Qui:
It’s YOUR contention that misery and injustice are inherent to Capitalism, yet YOU fail to explain why.
Also, “That movie came out while I was acing Economics in business school” made me laugh. For starters, you can’t see a movie if you’re in school? And second, is this supposed to impress anyone?
Misery exists in all societies, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. You are admittedly anti-capitalism and and you therefore associate any societal problems as being the result of a capitalist society. That’s fine, but until you explain this in greater detail, backed up by factual evidence, you will continue to come across as an intellectual lightweight repeating slogans you read in a library book, despite your A in Economics.
Again, a degree does not equal intellect.
If they would have supported the boycott I think I would have had real hope that Palestine would be free within my lifetime.
Wow.
That is seriously one of the dumbest phrases ever written or uttered in the history of modern speech.
Jesus.
A:
If it’s one of the dumbest phrases you’ve ever heard in your life it’s probably because of your failure to find any contradiction in, for example, condoning capitalism while condeming colonialism.
Amer:
You’ve shown, yet again, that you don’t read in full. Please scroll back up and review what you’ve missed. And when you’re done, please try and engage in the Capitalism/Palestine-Israel question.
Joe:
I can’t recall of any interactions with you. Further, what answer are you looking from me regarding your hypothetical Palestine question?
Okay Qui Qui. You win.
Yes. I think she wins, too.
Me too.
Qui Qui:
I’ve scrolled up and don’t see much in way of an answer. Apparently you can’t suggest a better alternative to capitalism so you try and change the subject to the Israel/Palestine conflict or directing people to read Marx online.
So again, what makes misery and injustice MORE prevalent in Capitalism than in other types of societies? Also, what do you suggest is a better alternative?
I’m wondering if you’re actually going to respond, or perhaps ask my opinion on the Israel/Syria peace talks. Or maybe tell me another course you aced in business school? Or tell me that you have power to change the comment system on this blog?
My reasons for asking you to show me an alternative to capitalism are disingenuous. I think capitalism is just fine how it is, and I’m really not interested in another economic model. The only reason why I’m asking you to provide me with an example is because I want to debunk anything you have to say without me first considering that you may have some valid points.
Yes I did.
I didn’t say that.
Actually, I did.
No, I didn’t.
Yes, I DID!!!!! And I’ll say it again if I have to.
Actually, I DIDN’T.
Alright, alright! Fine. I did say that.
Shut up.
See? Told me.
Because I always do this to me!
What? Why do I tell me to shut up for?
I am so effing annoying.
What do I always do, prove to me that I’m right all the time? Since when is that a crime?
Yes, I am habibi. Yes, I am.
Yes. Yes I was…
Ha! I was right that time!!
Ugh!! I hate me, I hate me, I hate me!
Yes I do.
No I don’t.
No I don’t.
Okay.
ARGH!!! I NEED TO JUST GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“”your failure to find any contradiction in, for example, condoning capitalism while condemning colonialism.”"
That’s funny, I always thought of colonialism as rather un-capitalist, but rather mercantilist. Capitalism thrives on comparative advantage and the efficient application of local knowledge and preferences; colonialism defies both of those principles.
“”Further, what answer are you looking from me regarding your hypothetical Palestine question?”"
I’m curious if your theory of justice includes any notion of the value of individual liberty — if whether or not your support for the creation of an independent state hinges at all on what type of state it would be.
In theory, I’m plenty in favor of a Palestinian state alongside the Israeli one, and in time, a merged liberal-secular-constitutional state for both people (Hopefully with plenty of intermarriage and bi-cultural kids raised with syncretic Judeo-Islamic traditions to smooth over the inevitable tensions).
However, as a practical matter, the extent to which I rag on Israel for things they do that sometimes make it harder to create an independent Palestinian state directly depends on the degree to which both the Israeli and Palestinian societies display the sort of respect for individual liberty and secular humanism that’s necessary for civilized progress.
In other words, whether or not a Palestinian state would allow a gay pride parade, leather-daddies in God-offending assless chaps and all, complete with atheist evangelizers handing out free Arabic-translated copies of Christopher Hitchens’ “God Is Not Great” on every street-corner, directly affects the amount of work I’m willing to do to allow those people to have a state in the first place.
To analogize the question: A man may become homeless for reasons that are unfair to him, but how much money I’m willing to give him still depends on whether or not I think he’ll blow my money on drugs or not.
And so I’m wondering if these are things you consider, at all, in determining the degree to which you support Palestinian statehood.
“”My reasons for asking you to show me an alternative to capitalism are disingenuous. I think capitalism is just fine how it is, and I’m really not interested in another economic model.”"
I’ll assume this is QuiQui writing, and explain a bit why I, too, would like you to lay out the system you propose as an alternative to capitalism.
I *don’t* think capitalism is “just fine how it is”. I think it’s got major imperfections to be worked upon, though those imperfections still pale in comparison to its successes.
However, when I look around me, I see those imperfections actually being worked out — I see a lot of self-reflection in the World Bank and IMF over the past few years, for instance, in understanding the problems with forcing Washington-Consensus privatization policies on weak and developing states.
There are other reasons for trying to have you clarify your alternatives:
1) Most of the proposed ‘alternatives to capitalism’, especially what currently passes for socialism, aren’t really alternatives to capitalism, per se, but rather proposals for alternate means of practicing capitalism. I’m curious to see if you’re even proposing any ideas that could genuinely be described as non-capitalist.
2) To clarify the nature of your objections to capitalism. Many of the objections to capitalism you’ve touched upon, such as the expropriation and over-use of natural resources, are more properly understood as objections to modernity — I’ve yet to see any evidence that, in a systemic fashion, non-capitalist systems are more efficient energy usage than capitalist ones, or that they are more effective at reducing energy demand while maintaining a comparable standard of living, or that they display more wisdom in the energy sources they invest in. Since all real-world choices are trade-offs, rather than sole decisions made in a vacuum, a full accounting of your proposed alternative is necessary if we’re going to vet whether your proposal really improves upon the system we’ve currently got in place, *or* that it would be an improvement over merely *amending* capitalism in an attempt to reduce its imperfections, as I see happening already (as mentioned above).
You are an insufferable bastard, Joe. If I don’t want my children to be exposed to men exposing their private parts and showing them why no values are better than good values, then I don’t deserve self-determination, according to you. You absolutely disgust me. Nobody wants you to work for anything. Just leave us all the hell alone, all of us would be happier.
it’s probably because of your failure to find any contradiction in, for example, condoning capitalism while condeming colonialism.
No.
It’s because it’s a dunkin donuts boycott.
Again – Jesus.
“”If I don’t want my children to be exposed to men exposing their private parts and showing them why no values are better than good values, then I don’t deserve self-determination, according to you. You absolutely disgust me.”"
‘No values’? In part due to the adversity our society has put them through and the experience of being the Other, I’d say gays and lesbians tend to have *better* values than your average person.
And since when does a gay pride parade constitute ‘exposing your private parts’? The ‘assless chaps’ example you cited is no different than a girl wearing a bikini on the beach.
Not to mention that our society has a pretty ludicrous definition of what constitutes ‘private parts’ — New York got it right by recently amending the law to allow women to walk fully topless in public if they so choose.
Teach your child whatever you’d like. And if you don’t want to take them to a gay pride parade, there’s nobody forcing you to, just as I wouldn’t take my kids to an event I found objectionable, such as a Neo-Nazi march (though the right of those neo-Nazis to march is a right I’d die to defend).
You’re not free to use violence against fellow members of society to advance your values.
Oh, and how is it not homophobic and bigoted to equate a gay pride parade with people who “have no values”?
“”Nobody wants you to work for anything.”"
‘Nobody’? Actually, if all goes according to plan I’ll be working for the U.S. government soon.
and of course qui qui doesn’t respond. another psuedo-intellectual bites the dust..