The Crises of Capitalism (1 Viewer)

cosmo kramer

Banned
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
2,582
Location
Forever UNSW
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
franco was awesome

too bad he didnt exterminate all of those lefties to prevent them from coming back after he died
 

Rothbard

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
1,118
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I would side with fascists over communists because I fucking hate communism and communists
 

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,867
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
No. I read quite a lot of it, and most of it ignored how the real world actually functions or proposed ideas that aren't functional.

Yeah you haven't read any of it

Rothbard wasn't interested in creating a decent society, he was interested in removing barriers to wealth and power for the capitalist class.
Even though he's written extensively about how the state allows individuals to become artificially wealthy compared to a free market?

Wow, this is simple stuff. You either A, have zero reading comprehension whatsoever, or B, haven't read a single book by rothbard. Probably both, I'm guessing.

And this whole notion of "classes" in utter nonsense

Dude, you've heard of the Spanish Civil War, come on. It holds a lot more weight than any free market fantasy.
Again, you're talking about movements. These "free market fantasies" involve millions of people rising out of poverty, and everyday people like you and me living like kings compared to people mere centuries ago.

There is no example of syndicalism working on a large scale, and so it fails dramatically in theory and has no empirical support.

And yet civil unrest is peaking worldwide,
caused by the state

real wages are dropping,
caused by the state. Pure market conditions lead to maximum possible productivity, and econ 101 the same money chasing more goods = goods becoming cheaper = real wages rising.

The state both prevents maximum production and inflates the money supply, causing real wages to stagnate/fall.


people are still being bombed and killed by the thousand in the name of profit,
Yeah mcdonalds bombs pakistan.

No wait, that's the state I'm thinking of.

suicide rates in Western countries are high and depression is widespread in industrialised nations.
Yeah but people in Africa are super-happy, right?

Private property is turning humans into robotic automata.
Sorry, where are these examples on non-private property economies working well?

Because workers were well off under the soviet union right?

Things lik these can be considered only in relative terms, and so nothing compares to capitalism. ANd of course, as I seem to have said over 9000 times, it's not a free market, and everything you described can be attributed to this fact.

What about the pre-Reagan American economic system? Far better off than under his economic conservatism.
AND once again you reveal your complete ignorance of history. Despite his rhetoric, Reagan greatly expanded the size of government.

http://mises.org/daily/5009/The-Reagan-Fraud-and-After

That's a logical fallacy.

Things aren't working well at all. Are we on the same planet?
By working well I mean we're not fucking Africa or India or soviet union.

Syndicalism can advocate a price system.
Funny, considering most syndicalists say that money is evil...

Anyway, the two are not compatible. Wages aren't determined by supply and demand, and so there's no reason to expect labour to be allocated efficiently.

What's that based on? History paints a different picture.
It's based on ECONOMICS, and history supports this. Notice how America became the world's richest nation in less than two centuries, while nations that were thousands of years old were in a state of poverty? It was because of free enterprise and entrepreneurship.

People living on the street outside of a skyscraper seems like chaos to me.
Never mind that without my advocated system, the thousands of various inputs of resources and labour could never have been coordinated to allow said building to exist.

It's apparent you don't really understand what I mean by chaos. Without money and prices, it''s impossible to determine how much of everything to produce, how many people should work in a particular industry or profession, where resources need to go and so forth. This is what entrepreneurs are responsible for, and you want to get rid of them.

The free market doctrine is the ultimate expression of Rand's staunch individualist ideology.
Mises was around before Rand, idiot.


They do, but that's not what a stateless free market provides. A stateless free market provides private tyrannies and gross inequalities in wealth and thus social standing and individual rights.
A free market leads to the highest and most efficient level of productivity possible, meaning there's more shit produced, meaning things become cheaper and everyone is wealthier.
The state erects barriers to entry which minimises competition with the rich, and so they can become artificially wealthier. The barriers to entry would not exist on a free market and so the rich would have to compete with up and coming entrepreneurs and so would not be so wealthy.

Equality would be greater on a free market, not that it's something I'm even concerned about. I'm pretty sure Africans would be thankful to have people thousands of times wealthier than them if it meant they could live a life remotely comparable to your average westerner.

Really? Look at India, the poster child for the free market. The amount of billionaires in India shot up considerably, and yet it has fallen several places on the HDI.
India is one of the most corrupt governments in the world and is nothing resembling a truly free market.
It actually demonstrates the brilliance of free trade and enterprise, though.
Throughout the twentieth century India had extremely severe restrictions on trade, and surprise surprise they were poor and miserable. In the nineties, they greatly reduced these restrictions, and millions of people were able to rise out of poverty. AND, it meant that millions of men and women were able to get decent jobs after working as prostitutes and drug traffickers/criminals, respectively.

It must be pretty embarrassing when you have nothing to support your theories with.

Pointing out the supposed flaws in a certain system (which is in reality not a free market) is not enough to oppose it. You have not shown any alternatives other than some syndicate nonsense with fails in theory and has no practical evidence, and apparently rests purely on the virtue of it's INTENDED goals, though economics suggests that achieving said goals is not possible.
 

Super King

New Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
20
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Look at all these god damn lefties touting their nonsense. Until you can give me something that works, I will not hear a word of your garbage.
Bring down the system all you want friends, but remember who is paying for your Centrelink benefits that help you get by while you complete your Arts degree.

Socialists and Communists are just people who are upset that other people have more money than them because those other people actually have a commendable work ethic instead of sitting around and complaining like princesses and waiting for everything to come to them.

I should wake up Menzies, he's been dead for 33 years, he'd be mighty pissed off. He doesn't give a fuck about the two-party preferred vote, and he's out for blood. RED blood.
 

yoddle

is cool
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
1,129
Location
nowhere man
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
SylvesterBr, if you have time please explain to me the practical steps that would need to be taken in order to establish a completely free market. Use Australia as an easy example. As in, from what what we have now, what would be the processes (revolution? just legislative changes? abolition of the state?) which would allow a small government and a truly free market?
 

jennyfromdabloc

coked up sociopath
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
735
Location
The American Gardens Building
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
1. Attack the current political structure in the United States which calls it self capitalism.

2. Proclaim to have debunked libertarian views of capitalism which are just as critical of the current paradigm.

seen it so many times. its all just semantics. whenever people start arguing about the "true meanings" of political jargon, I'm always happy to concede that they are right every time. Once you define what you actually mean, they can't hide behind that bullshit.
 
Last edited:

byebyebye

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
33
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2012
Are wages the only source of income and are wages the only financial instrument able to invest into capital (i.e products)?
For 99% of us 'commoners' wages are the only source levied against spending and borrowing, so the Harvey's video holds true. Rental incomes are a source of income for landlords paid by tenants who are paid a wage or the welfare state funded through taxation of people's wages. Labour rates are considered a cost rather than a proportion of profits and so profit is not a source of income for the majority
 

tobbinator

New Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
13
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
well, it depends what you mean by communism. I am talking about nazi socialism which was also fascism.
That's not communism, nowhere near.

Hitler's "National Socialists" were just using that name because they were populists. The nazis were fascist in all but name.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
346
Location
sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
That's not communism, nowhere near.

Hitler's "National Socialists" were just using that name because they were populists. The nazis were fascist in all but name.
what do you even mean by communism? are you talking about state less societes where the worker owns the means of production or are you talking about FASCISt sates which steal wealth from its people to redistribute it. (nazism)
 

tobbinator

New Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
13
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
what do you even mean by communism? are you talking about state less societes where the worker owns the means of production or are you talking about FASCISt sates which steal wealth from its people to redistribute it. (nazism)
I am talking about Communism in the Marxian sense, ie a classless, stateless society where the workers control the means of production. So yes, the former.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top