Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

Where is Buckinghamshire?

When war lords ruled in England and Japan , laws had to be made to restrict their power. When men capitalized on the ability to keep slaves we made laws outlawing this trade. When men of industry had total control of its labour, labour laws had to be introduced to curb their greed and give the workers certain rights. When being coloured meant abuse from their white neighbours , human rights and anti discriminatory laws made their plight less painful. In one silly idea you would revert this evolution and place us back to the dark ages. I for one would fight you by any means possible to prevent this occurring. We judge society by its ability to protect the most vulnerable, yours would have no such benefit.

So slavery exists in Europe and the Americas , well that news to me. So you think America has not moved forward in ts treatment of its black population. Have you noticed you have a black man as president. Alabama has a better reputation than it did in the 60s.

Did I say the world is perfect, north Korea is not a democracy its a capitalist country, described by your reasoning. Laws originate from a free peoples who determine the governments laws. Freedom to express the majority view is non existent in your anarchic state. It will deteriorate to the strongest nastiest individuals.

Capitalism is the ability of the strong to exert their strength over the weak without moral laws or guidance.

Ahhh... that's your problem. You got a completely backwards definition of the term. What you call capitalism, I would call anti-capitalism.
This is the definition of capitalism:
An economic system in which the means of production are privately or corporately owned. (Ownership is the formal right to control.)
So capitalism means that private people control the means of production. Meaning that if the strong exert their power over the weak, that is the opposite of capitalism, since those weak then are not allowed to privately control their means of production. I don't make the terms. If you're using terms in some willy-nilly wildly incorrect way, because that way they kind off fit your gut feeling, you'll never find any true answers.
And you neatly defined all the bad stuff that government intervention causes as "capitalist".
If you define "the moon" to be that yellow glowing thing that is in the sky at day, people won't understand what you're talking about. And your Apollo rocket certainly wouldn't reach the right place.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 05:59 PM ----------

Your definition doesnt really fit reality either. Wouldn't you agree that the weak are far better off in the capitalistic west than they are in the rest of the world? So if capitalism is the strong exerting their power over the weak, shouldn't the weak be the most downtrodden in the west, and less downtrodden in the less capitalistic rest of the world?

Also it would mean that self-declared socialists that exerted their power over the weak, like Stalin and Mao, were capitalists. How does that make sense?

But you claim there is no capitalist west, you have constantly told me a true capitalist country does not exist. You select the little bits that work and claim them as capitalist inspired but refute the ship bits. So how are we in west , mostly socialist, by your previous reckoning better of now but less well of when it fits your twisted perspective. Make your mind up for goodness sake.

You claim anarchy as the ultimate in capitalist ideology but refuse to accept the examples.

North Korea is not government it is the prime example of a capitalist inspired regime. The very strongest gain control and keep the weak in abject poverty. It cares not who controls production it just harvest the profits for its own benefit, just like the war lords of old. No way does it aspire to control production for the benefit of all ,its selective and protects its assets by fear. All the attributes of capitalism without democratic controls.

I can give you examples of anarchy in action with your capitalist ideology acting against the benefits of the majority but you cant give one good example, NOT ONE.

Well, what am I supposed to tell someone who thinks that North Korea is capitalist...
I thank you for the prolonged debate, and hope you do some reading.

xris, could you do the following?
Write down the three examples of periods (of say 10-50 years since 1800) of nations that applied your ideals the best.
And the three examples of periods of nations that applied your ideal the worst.
So for example:
1. Great Britain 1950-1980
2. Norway 1980-2010
3. Singapore in the 60'es

Why should I give you any examples only for you to tell me economic advances were only made because of other factors ?

So you rather believe something that could be discredited by empiric tests, than to admit that you have mistakes in your opinion?

I have no intentions of defending socialism on your terms. I gave you one example, is that one too many?

I have shown, by example, numerous times, the failings of capialism either historiclly or locally. You are making claims that capitalism will create world peace, you have in my opinion failed dismally, on every occassion.

But it has also been pointed out to you that the examples you are using to discredit capitalism are not true capitalist examples. They are broken systems that the government has interfered with. Yet you are blaming the system when it is the government to blame for the failing.

I have no intentions of defending socialism on your terms.

I gave you one example, is that one too many?

I have shown, by example, numerous times, the failings of capialism either historiclly or locally.

BUT no one has told me how true capitalism, the ideology, would have resolved these problems.

You are not actually defending socialism as it is defined. (Central planning.) You are defending something which you call "socialism", which which has little to do with actual socialism. This means on the one hand that the actual effects of socialism don't apply to your ideal, and could never 'spoil' it for you. And on the other hand that what you would be getting from more actual socialism wouldn't fit your ideal at all.
So all I want you to accept, is that what you like, is not called socialism. And what you dislike, is not called capitalism.

Do you agree with this at all?: Socialism - Encyclopedia of Economics



You mean Norway? Since Norway without oil revenue would have one third lower GDP per capita than the US, that means it's political system was less successful in bringing wealth to it's citizens than that of the US.

And don't forget that comparing such a tiny nation with real nations is not a comparison that means anything. Norway has 0.00647% of the worlds economy. It's soooo tiny! While the US has 27% of the worlds economy. You see how you are comparing some tiny, itzy-bitzy little fluke, that you couldn't even see on a graph, to make conclusions that it's economics system works?
I bet there are areas in the US, with the same population as Norway, that have higher per capita GDP. So if one of those areas was a nation instead of a part of the US, would that mean anything about capitalism and socialism? All Norway proves is that socialist Europe happens to have the borders drawn so they separate the poor areas from the very rich areas, so then you can pick a few of the rich areas and proclaim socialism a success, leaving out the rest. All of socialist Europe as an average has half the per capita GDP of the US.
Also, you are pointing out a quite short-term trend. Even in 1974 the US had a higher per capita GDP than Norway (despite Norways oil, and the three per capita richest nations at that time were Arab oil nations). So socialism, which Norway started experimenting with in the 30's, has harmed Norway, which would be much richer (and more free) if it wasn't for socialism.



You have not shown the failings of capitalism as it is actually defined. (Private ownership of production.) You have very successfully argued against a creation of your mind, which you call "capitalism". And actually I would agree with a lot of your commentary on the evils of greedy bankers using government for their benefit. The only problem is, that that's not what capitalism is. We might agree about everything except the meaning of a few words.
If I call you Nancy, and then prove that Nancy is evil, does that say anything about you?



True capitalism, as in free markets, has been resolving these problems. And I have been pointing that out in examples and theory through this thread and the other one.
I would even go as far as posing the following challenge: Point out any phase in history in which there has been societal success, and I can tell you how it was because of free markets. Point out any phase in history in which there has been oppression, poverty and failure, and I can tell you how it was because of abandoning free markets.