This'll be good for a laugh...... our society and all other successful societies are a combination of restrained capitalism and socialism .. any delusion that unconstrained capitalism is the only way forward is just that - delusion - as history so clearly shows us from the times of the Robber Baron capitalists, and the endless revolutions by the starving and oppressed masses that lead to bloodshed and often social disruption.

Why anyone would continue to adhere to the absurd thinking that there is only either capitalism or socialism is beyond me.    

ONLY in Internetland is this kind of thinking even allowed the light of day.

Your youtube article doesn't even address capitalism v any form of socialism - it's about reasoned middle of the road thinking v Marxist theory and rhetoric..... huge difference.  In no way does it support 'capitalism' - only western values.

capitalism is a "meritocracy".  the more valuable you are, the more valuable you are.

we all know this and it gives us the motivation to "strive".

WTF sort of world would it be if you got out of bed in the morning and you didnt have anything to strive for.

that would be a living hell 

It's Capitalism that pays the bills, and Socialism which accrues the bills........

Fuzzball wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 10:45am:


it wasn't capitalism that bailed out the banks during the GFC

bwood1946 wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 11:33am:



Not so much bailout, but keep them in check so they didnt have to bail them out.

bwood1946 wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 11:33am:


who said anything about australia?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 10:30am:


There's no such thing. Capitalism is supported by states.

aquascoot wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 10:27am:


Yet an huge proportion of the worlds wealth is inherited by people who do just that.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 7:50pm:


You need pure capitalism for small business then the bigger a business gets the more Govt intervention required.

aquascoot wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 7:35am:


Awesome summary from Petersen.


One from Milei:
And throughout the whole period between the year zero and the year 1800, the per capita GDP growth rate remains stable at around 0.02% annually. So almost no growth. Starting in the 19th century with the Industrial Revolution, the compound annual growth rate was 0.66%. And at that rate, in order to double per capita GDP, you would need some 107 years.

Now, if you look at the period between the year 1900 and the year 1950, the growth rate accelerated to 1.66% a year. So you no longer need 107 years to double per capita GDP – but 66. And if you take the period between 1950 and the year 2000, you will see that the growth rate was 2.1%, which would mean that in only 33 years we could double the world’s per capita GDP.

This trend, far from stopping, remains well alive today. If we take the period between the years 2000 and 2023, the growth rate again accelerated to 3% a year, which means that we could double world per capita GDP in just 23 years.

That said, when you look at per capita GDP since the year 1800 until today, what you will see is that after the Industrial Revolution, global per capita GDP multiplied by over 15 times, which meant a boom in growth that lifted 90% of the global population out of poverty.

We should remember that by the year 1800, about 95% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. And that figure dropped to 5% by the year 2020, prior to the pandemic. The conclusion is obvious.

Far from being the cause of our problems, free trade capitalism as an economic system is the only instrument we have to end hunger, poverty and extreme poverty across our planet. The empirical evidence is unquestionable.

Therefore since there is no doubt that free enterprise capitalism is superior in productive terms, the left-wing doxa has attacked capitalism, alleging matters of morality, saying – that’s what the detractors claim – that it’s unjust. They say that capitalism is evil because it’s individualistic and that collectivism is good because it’s altruistic. Of course, with the money of others.

So they therefore advocate for social justice. But this concept, which in the developed world became fashionable in recent times, in my country has been a constant in political discourse for over 80 years. The problem is that social justice is not just, and it doesn’t contribute to general well-being.

Quite on the contrary, it’s an intrinsically unfair idea because it’s violent. It’s unjust because the state is financed through tax and taxes are collected coercively. Or can any one of us say that we voluntarily pay taxes? This means that the state is financed through coercion and that the higher the tax burden, the higher the coercion and the lower the freedom.

Jasin wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:


Good post, good observations.

The other thing I don't like about Capitalism, is that it is a Predatory system. It serves only to advantage the Predators (Carnivores so to speak) over Prey (Herbivores). So if you happen to be a Herbivore of 'Peace', then Capitalism is going to work against you. What you see in the USA is that the only way to get ahead in Capitalism is to 'prey upon' other people. In other words - Capitalism: Destroy the Competition, because it can't compete fairly with Competition. It's as simple as that. That's why 'all entities' in America, who claim to be about Equality, Peace, Love, etc, etc - are all truly Predatory in their nature: to succeed off the backs and sufferings, misfortunes, poverty (because the Deepest Pocket wins, not the truths of the matter even in a Court of Law) and pacifisms.

The only 'flaw' of Communism I can see is that it falls into the Northern Hemisphere trait of Politics saying its for 'the People' (of many different entities other than Political or outside of it) - when it truly isn't. It's only for the 'people' inside Politics itself.
Lenin may have made Communism 'for the People' (Peasants, etc) - but once it had attained its right to power, it too became another Political style/theme that folded back on itself to be for the Party or the People in Politics directly. Thus the peasantry and mainstream people were again under an Oppressive minority of Power that predated off those not directly in it.
Same with such things like Roman Republic (Re-Public) and all the other Political styles around the world structured on the Northern Hemisphere trait. Never truly ruled by 'the People' as a 'majority', but again by a minority of 'People' in the Political 'zone'.

In South America. There are many 'businesses' that are actually owned and run by the 'Workers' and their CEO's and Managers, etc - work for them. What this does is it keeps the Workers employed, their jobs going and the businesses run by 'the People' indeed. They have the last word, not the CEO's. This is just one true and pure example of what a Southern Hemisphere Political environment would be.

I have no doubt if Communism came about in the Southern Hemisphere like Australia via Egalitarianism (which has been corrupted into the Northern Hemisphere style - which is why Egalitarianism here has all but dissapeared from here now, as it once was). It would indeed be a state of existence where the mainstream people of majority do run the Political future of this country and the Party of Representatives for that - would be the Servants, not the Rulers. The final decision would not be left in the hands of a wealthy minority - because the Wealth would be spread out among the Common populace like a Commonwealth in its truest form.

Capitalism: Destroy the Competition (not compete fairly with them).

Of course, anyone in Politics as you see it (especially under Capitalism) would say that by REALLY making Politics 'for THE PEOPLE' of the mainstream populace. It would dis-empower Politics as the wealth would not be funnelled towards a Minority, but spread out among the majority. Politics would cease to exist as a 'Power'.
Well Politically speaking yes - but it empowers the 'many' over the 'few' which is what Northern Hemisphere Politics does.

Wouldn't it be nice if Albanese walked into a Factory of Workers (Proles, Plebs, Peasantry, etc) and said "Hi!" 
Only for them to say "Where's our wage increase you *****. If we don't see it in a week - you're a dead man to be replaced!"
Poor Albanese would finally have a 'consequence' for not serving 'the People' (of majority). 
Would Albanese state "But, but - if I do that, then our Political minority will be less empowered to a quality of life higher/better than your own!"

Quote:


yes, I think a moderated Capitalist system is best

Karnal wrote on Apr 19^th, 2024 at 6:08pm:


Oh look - 2017.

Silly old moi, eh?

aquascoot wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 7:35am:


He is spot on.

Scruton wrote a book on post modern French intellectuals of the kind Petersen is talking about.
The title? Fools, Frauds and Firebrands - Thinkers of the New Left


Table of Contents
1 What is Left? /
2 Resentment in Britain: Hobsbawm and Thompson /
3 Disdain in America: Galbraith and Dworkin /
4 Liberation in France: Sartre and Foucault /
5 Tedium in Germany: Downhill to Habermas /
6 Nonsense in Paris: Althusser, Lacan and Deleuze /
7 Culture Wars Worldwide: The New Left from Gramsci to Said /
8 The Kraken Wakes: Badiou and Žižek /
9 What is Right?

tickleandrose wrote on Oct 25^th, 2017 at 11:18am:



That is individual greedy capitalists .... that is not capitalism.

John Smith wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2024 at 8:43am:


He literally said capitalist, not capitalism.

John Smith wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2024 at 8:43am:


And you're not a capitalist?

Just greedy ..... yes?

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2024 at 10:01am:


Is that why the Russians & Chinese are filthy rich?

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2024 at 8:54am:


and?

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2024 at 10:36am:


Some are, just as with capitalism.

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2024 at 12:48pm:


But it doesn't mention that the dark-blue regions are the poorest in self-supporting domestic population growth.
Sure, they're richer - but when it comes to having children, they're the poor nations. Filled with divorced relationships, broken families and people who can only afford 'little white fluffy dogs' as kids - as they struggle to live up to the 'lifestyle' associated with that financial wealth.

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2024 at 11:49am:

I have nothing against a Woman's choice.
But it seems that the 'Rich' nations prefer women not to breed at all, raise kids, etc - rather have them 'liberated' into working and 'careering' for the Economy instead.
Seems the Dark Blue nations have just gone to the other extreme where 'families' are no longer an issue, its all about National Wealth and 'upper' lifestyles.

The Blue Nations don't exhibit the 'middle-ground' of both having children and attaining wealth in moderation.

The Blue Nations are the richest, but are also the most 'sterile' in breeding.
Little wonder there is a flood of immigration from the outside into them at the moment.

...are thosenations of wealth, really just Gay nations in disguise?

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2024 at 12:02pm:

Yes - they're happy to chuck in having children to chase careers. Nothing wrong with that at all.
I mean - there's a huge increase in women needing 'sperm donors' as their biological clock ticks some sort of 'regret' in their mentality. One Sydney bus-driver has had to service at least 42 women (and his wife is proud of him) who suddenly decided their careers 'only' was not sufficient enough to make them feel 'full-filled'.

It is what it is. The Dark-Blue nations have chosen a 'child-free Zone' of existence as children cost too much in keeping up with that 'wealthy' culture that comes with it.
This is how they stay rich and dark-blue.

There is the extremism of financially poor but population rich nations.
And of financially rich but population poor nations (who need masses of immigration like what you see in USA and Australia - because their domestic population is 'gay' culturally).

Women have choice. They populate well in some parts of the world, they career well in other parts of the world.
Some women choose to have children and make some money as well without compromising themselves to any 'extreme'.

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2024 at 11:20am:



did you read that in a book somewhere?   Much of the work we do is work for the sake of working. People create forms to justify their jobs, and other fill them out to keep theirs. Hardly working hard.

People work to achieve a goal. A  goal can be financial or it can be for other reasons.

John Smith wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2024 at 10:33am:



This is as concentratedly stupid as can be expected from you, thicko. Put this on your business card.

You are a capitalist - motivated by self interest - but capitalism doesn't work because of self interest. Still you stick with it because socialism doesn't work either because of self interest. The great divided parrot is looking for a research assistant, you fit the bill.

Frank wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2024 at 7:32pm:


Just because it's beyond you. As are most things.

Quote:


The best societies take the best aspects from both systems and get a fail and balance result.

Extreme capitalism is just as bad as extreme socialism.

John Smith wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2024 at 8:49pm:


Nothing to do with painting houses really. I can't think of anyone who would turn up to their job, or work as hard as they do, if they weren't getting paid. Not sure why I have to explain this.

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2024 at 6:10pm:


Painting houses is ok but sometimes I will do a waterscape or portrait.

Nothing wrong with being a house painter either but they do seem to become the target of snobs.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2024 at 9:49pm:

Graffiti art is a skill with a career path on railways and city buildings. Often unpaid, it's known for snobbery and elitism among the un-professional class of pre-school body-painters.

chimera wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2024 at 6:45am:


Sorry .... no it's not.

There are very few real artists in the Graffiti world.

By the majority they are just illiterate taggers/scribblers criminally vandalising public and private property.

If they were talented ... then there would be no need for them to be a vandal defacing property without permission.

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2024 at 5:55am:


Not sure you could manage it without breaking them

John Smith wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2024 at 9:32am:



As do most people.

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2024 at 9:57am:


What happened to your crayon explanation, you can't tell which colour to use?

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2024 at 10:19am:


News flash FD, you didn't 'go' with yellow, it's your default setting

Quote:


While capitalism seems to splutter from one emergency bail out to the next any success it has at all seems to depend on the exploitation of the working classes.

When was the last "emergency bailout" we had?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2024 at 10:14pm:


How about during covid, no bailouts there ehhh Goober

Bobby. wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2024 at 10:14pm:


You know that was in a different country, right Bobby?

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 6:43am:


SO the $10.4 B stimulus package the govt handed out at the time and the guarantees it gave to bank deposits don't count? 

By the way, when are you going to fix the damn forum properly. It's taking over a minute for some pages to flip.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 7:22am:


no one said they occured daily dumbarse. And the economy has to deal with reality, of which covid is a part off. Unlike economic theory which ignores reality and relies on pink unicorns and rainbows

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 9:05am:



but you did pretend someone argued that we were going from one bail out to another

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 6:14pm:


no, but you are

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 7:22am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 6:01pm:



Dnarever wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2024 at 8:22pm:



Duckwit, your intellectual superior, did argue it.

Frank wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 6:22pm:


Historically it is a fact of capitalism. The people have to bail out a failing economy every 10 to 15 years or so. Left to its own greed based resources it would likely have failed long ago.

Fact is that our system is nothing like a fully capitalist system and this serves to make the system a lot stronger and more flexible.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 8:11pm:

Bollocks.

It is a historic fact from the horizon of a duck who shites all over the place and whose historical understanding goes all the way back to last month.

Rome was doling out free grain 2000 years ago just to maintain social peace and to avoid revolts.

Jasin wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 8:23pm:



Dadaism.

Pus in boot:

Frank wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 8:30pm:


I bet you think you posted something sensible or relevant.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 8:40pm:

Yeah. You wouldn't understand, and that was never the point, of course, duckwit. 

Every society, capitalist, socialist, feudal, antique, East, West etc - all have acted, always, to stave off disaster.

Only pea-brained water fowl thing that this is a unique, 'evil' capitalist ruse.  Such ducks shite and waddle on. You can't teach them ANYTHING. They resist instruction and learning.