well, no.. the thing is capitalism is dangerous in the fact that it can sustain itself for roughly 200 years before turning ugly. it builds infrastructure but also sets the bomb to destroy it

Quote from: DisturbedMind883 on January 26, 2015, 10:07:06 AM

well, no.. the thing is capitalism is dangerous in the fact that it can sustain itself for roughly 200 years before turning ugly. it builds infrastructure but also sets the bomb to destroy it

All you're doing is spouting cryptic nonsense that doesn't challenge what I'm saying or even make much sense.

What does sustain itself for 200 years before "turning ugly" even mean?

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 26, 2015, 10:14:37 AM

Quote from: DisturbedMind883 on January 26, 2015, 10:07:06 AM

well, no.. the thing is capitalism is dangerous in the fact that it can sustain itself for roughly 200 years before turning ugly. it builds infrastructure but also sets the bomb to destroy it

All you're doing is spouting cryptic nonsense that doesn't challenge what I'm saying or even make much sense.

What does sustain itself for 200 years before "turning ugly" even mean?

it means that capitalism encourages corruption. and its basically humanely impossible to have pure capitalism due to human nature itself.

the system should just be scrapped if its not realistic

Quote from: DisturbedMind883 on January 26, 2015, 10:17:51 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 26, 2015, 10:14:37 AM

Quote from: DisturbedMind883 on January 26, 2015, 10:07:06 AM

well, no.. the thing is capitalism is dangerous in the fact that it can sustain itself for roughly 200 years before turning ugly. it builds infrastructure but also sets the bomb to destroy it

All you're doing is spouting cryptic nonsense that doesn't challenge what I'm saying or even make much sense.

What does sustain itself for 200 years before "turning ugly" even mean?

it means that capitalism encourages corruption. and its basically humanely impossible to have pure capitalism due to human nature itself.

the system should just be scrapped if its not realistic

Except it doesn't because, as I already said, most of the most capitalist countries on the planet are largely free of corruption. I bet you can't even name on instance of genuine corruption that has plunged a capitalist economy into decay.

So the system which has given 1pc of human history 99pc of its wealth is unrealistic, whereas your ideal of a classless society is realistic? Give me a break.

I can't because genuine capitalism has never occurred

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 26, 2015, 03:26:18 PM

Quote from: DisturbedMind883 on January 26, 2015, 03:23:41 PM

I can't because genuine capitalism has never occurred

Okay, broadly capitalist.

I think we can safely define a fair few nations as sufficiently capitalist to warrant judgement; otherwise what the fuck is your criticism even based on?

So, go ahead. Broadly or typically capitalist countries that have had significant socio-economic problems because of capitalism?

alright, here is a chart of corruption for 2010



almost all of the countries in red have had capitalist platforms introduced or are poor.

and the socialist countries like france and canada are less corrupt than the capitalist ones

socialist countries like france and canada

Quote from: Jocephalopod on January 26, 2015, 03:36:24 PM

oh my fuck.....

This guy is so obviously pretending to be stupid. Meta is only replying because he likes to win arguments, not because he actually has anything intelligent to bring up.

I respect government agents, I really do, but I can fucking tell who they are just by the way they try to manipulate people.

if people would just actively listen

Quote from: DisturbedMind883 on January 26, 2015, 03:45:42 PM

if people would just actively listen

I've been doing that this entire time but when you come out with shit like Canada and France being socialist it's difficult to keep the effort up.

Canada and France are not socialist. And your graph quite nicely displays a clear correlation between private, economic freedom and a lack of corruption and the development of wealth. When I said 'broadly capitalist', I didn't mean every country under the Sun which at some point had a nominally capitalist government; I assumed you had the nous to grasp that.

Now, we can debate the extent to which certain countries are truly capitalist, but you still have all your work still ahead of you to explain the resilience of Australia, the success of Hong Kong and Estonia, the successful market reforms of China and countless other examples of capitalism working. But what your graph didn't do is answer my question, which was to do with you giving me a single instance in which capitalism has induced serious economic hardship within a country.

Answer that question.

i can't have 5 discussions at once

Quote from: Jocephalopod on January 26, 2015, 03:41:40 PM

the thing that amazes me is that I've met people who are just as stubborn and mentally delayed as this guy IRL

for the sake of my sanity i hope it's not real

Yeah but stupid people are easily manipulable, so it's extremely odd that some idiot would have become a communist despite the heavy anti-communist rhetoric in the United States. Not that there aren't idiots who do become anarchists or communists, but generally they're not so dumb that can't rely on some form of logic (even if its broken and applied as chunks rather than one cohesive sentiment) and they'll usually be able to write in proper English. But this user just screams "look at how uneducated I am and how I support this radical idea". If the guy behind the account isn't a schemer or some sort, it's one hell of a coincidence.

Quote from: DisturbedMind883 on January 26, 2015, 03:54:20 PM

i can't have 5 discussions at once

I can.

We aren't going to go easy on you because you can't handle it. That isn't how debates work, and you should be ready and willing to properly defend the ideas and values you espouse, especially when they're so radical and ahistorical.