31–40 of 40 posts
I know it's failed everywhere else in the world, but maybe internet censorship will save me !
I know it's failed everywhere else in the world, but maybe Socialism/Communism will work for us!
It has begun. The president has prohibited protests, and went on TV calling his supporters against protestors, claiming they are against democracy and that he's suffering a coup-d'etat. A restraining order was issued against the opposition candidate. He's going full dictator now. Expect similar social unrest, and the same tactic from the government (blaming the protesters as violent, calling then "right-wing fascists…
Maduro declared all protests illegal then a few hours later called for his supporters to protest against his enemies. This guys is literally destroying a nation. I agree with you on Argentina but Brazil is probably a different story - not as corrupt and not as crazy. Peru and Ecuador are much closer to Venezuela's and Argentina's situation. The amazing thing is how long these situations can go on. The combination of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it's failed everywhere else in the world, but maybe Socialism/Communism will work for us!
The problem with this idea, is the implication that Capitalism hasn't failed people many places in the world already.
The system can be more socialistic or more free-marketist, that's the only choice. And the more socialistic have failed more.
It has begun. The president has prohibited protests, and went on TV calling his supporters against protestors, claiming they are against democracy and that he's suffering a coup-d'etat. A restraining order was issued against the opposition candidate. He's going full dictator now. Expect similar social unrest, and the same tactic from the government (blaming the protesters as violent, calling then "right-wing fascists…
Maduro declared all protests illegal then a few hours later called for his supporters to protest against his enemies. This guys is literally destroying a nation. I agree with you on Argentina but Brazil is probably a different story - not as corrupt and not as crazy. Peru and Ecuador are much closer to Venezuela's and Argentina's situation. The amazing thing is how long these situations can go on. The combination of…
I've lived in Brazil my whole life. I think the situation is moving towards it. It's just as corrupt and politically unstable. It's just humming along because the economy hasn't tanked (yet). Economy is everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with this idea, is the implication that Capitalism hasn't failed people many places in the world already.
"Capitalism" is not a system. Capitalism is life itself. The system can be more socialistic or more free-marketist, that's the only choice. And the more socialistic have failed more.
Of course it is a system. Just as feudalism is a system. It's a way in which to organize distribution of abstracted wealth. You might claim that it's a consequence of industrialization (and still be wrong, but at least make sense).
Would you characterize the organization of the native North Americans as a capitalist society, before the arrival of Europeans?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maduro declared all protests illegal then a few hours later called for his supporters to protest against his enemies. This guys is literally destroying a nation. I agree with you on Argentina but Brazil is probably a different story - not as corrupt and not as crazy. Peru and Ecuador are much closer to Venezuela's and Argentina's situation. The amazing thing is how long these situations can go on. The combination of…
Nobody would thought Argentina was on the brink of it 2 years ago. Brazil is a mess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Capitalism" is not a system. Capitalism is life itself. The system can be more socialistic or more free-marketist, that's the only choice. And the more socialistic have failed more.
> "Capitalism" is not a system. Capitalism is life itself. Of course it is a system. Just as feudalism is a system. It's a way in which to organize distribution of abstracted wealth. You might claim that it's a consequence of industrialization (and still be wrong, but at least make sense). Would you characterize the organization of the native North Americans as a capitalist society, before the arrival of Europeans?
Feudalism is a system, but it was built into capitalism. Feudal lords had land as their property, they made voluntary contracts of their vassals: I'll protect you and give you some land, you'll give some of your production to me. There was also trade, merchants et cetera.
This applies to everything. The Native North Americans had private property and various kinds of contracts -- which probably involved some communal property and other stuff.
When there's some entity exercising coercion (non-voluntary contracts), that entity is the State and there is socialism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Capitalism" is not a system. Capitalism is life itself. Of course it is a system. Just as feudalism is a system. It's a way in which to organize distribution of abstracted wealth. You might claim that it's a consequence of industrialization (and still be wrong, but at least make sense). Would you characterize the organization of the native North Americans as a capitalist society, before the arrival of Europeans?
Capitalism is just private property and voluntary contracts. It's impossible to untie life from that. Feudalism is a system, but it was built into capitalism. Feudal lords had land as their property, they made voluntary contracts of their vassals: I'll protect you and give you some land, you'll give some of your production to me. There was also trade, merchants et cetera. This applies to everything. The Native North…
Agreed. In particular, ownership of the means of production, land and natural resources (and now extended to ownership of ideas, information and data [eg: gene sequences that have been "discovered"]).
> and voluntary contracts.
I don't think we agree on what "voluntary" means.
> It's impossible to untie life from that.
"Life"? Are you trying to say that property isn't a social construct? How is the concept of property relevant outside of a society?
> The Native North Americans had private property
"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit
"We do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkle of the water. How can you buy them from us?" -Sealth