Thanks for the response, I’m appreciating this sort of discussion a lot more. i"ll have to respond later though.
I put each for different reaons 
Marx on capitalist economics, Lenin on imperialism, Kropotkin and Bakunin on leftist anarchism and anti-propertarian ideals.
Not to mention that more then enough food is produced to feed the world while millions die each year due to starvation…
We definitely need more Soviet-style road planning, comrades.
what do they not give men pants in the soviet union?
lolwut?
Anyway @ the OP, I don’t think Capitalism necessarily puts all resources to their “best” or “most efficient” use. However in general it does exponentially better than any other system we have come up with.
“Not to mention that more then enough food is produced to feed the world while millions die each year due to starvation…”
Capitalist socities have never seen a famine. If the poor nations of the world allowed private property, kept their currencies stable, and let individuals persue their own interests, then the quantiy of food would cease to be a problem.
Your definition of capitalism is so restricted and limited that you can simply ignore any counter examples as being “not capitalist”. This essentially just excludes any failed example of capitalism.Yet, you would be happy to tell me how much capitalism has improved the life and the standard of livings and defend sweatshops. But then whenever a criticism is raised, those same actions are turned around and looked from the other side, for being “state intervention, regulated markets”, and etc…
Either say capitalism never existed and that the current corporation is completely different from your percieved idea of capitalism, or stop praising the status quo.
And yet you can criticize socialism by taking the Soviet Union as an example of communism?
For example?
Define capitalism.
Just to be sure. People here seem to have very demented definitions of political idealogies.
Someone here told me that half the world is socialist, so…
non-coercion.
“Yet, you would be happy to tell me how much capitalism has improved the life and the standard of livings and defend sweatshops.”
No one defends sweatshops. You are misrepresenting our position to appeal to emotion.
“But then whenever a criticism is raised, those same actions are turned around and looked from the other side, for being “state intervention, regulated markets”, and etc…”
Most of the criticisms I have seen about the “free market” have really been criticisms of interventions into the market by governments. Your example of sweatshops is a good one.
“Either say capitalism never existed and that the current corporation is completely different from your percieved idea of capitalism, or stop praising the status quo.”
No one is defending the status quo, which is a soft form of fascism or corporatism.
No one defends sweatshops. You are misrepresenting our position to appeal to emotion.
To be fair, a lot of Austrians have defended sweatshops. The fact is that sweatshops pay on average twice as much as other employers in the countries that use them.
Edit: Yup there you go.
“To be fair, a lot of Austrians have defended sweatshops. The fact is that sweatshops pay on average twice as much as other employers in the countries that use them.”
Bringing up the horrible conditions in sweatshops isn’t really just making an emotional appeal. I mean if your discussing politics, I certainly hope this kind of thing concerns you..
From what I seen, Ancaps have been very hypocritical and use double-standards in their analysis.
If they can find some information how some African country has improved, then its used as evidence that capitalism is working. When you point out to a country where private property exists, but yet its people are miserable, then its not because of capitalism but state intervention, and the like.
I wouldn’t think so, but look above.
“To be fair, a lot of Austrians have defended sweatshops. The fact is that sweatshops pay on average twice as much as other employers in the countries that use them.”
Well I certainly don’t defend sweatshops, however I agree the workers are better off with employment at a sweatshop than they would have otherwise been. The question is, why are the workers in countries with sweatshops paid so little? Is it “big bad capitalism”? Or is it a government that violates private property rights and doesn’t allow the labor market to function correctly?
Jeez, the free market runs the governments. First lesson of imperialism?
To seperate the state and the corporations and abolish the former is one thing. To then seperate corporations and smaller markets and abolish the former is another. To seperate private property from the nature of expanstion, power, and profits, is utopian.
Capitalism is defined by the ability to own your own property and engage in mutually beneficial exchange. That’s all.
Your so-called examples are not market failures. They are emotional pleas which expose your ignorance. The fact that farmers don’t produce enough to feed the whole world (and destroy their profits) is not the problem of capitalism. It’s the problem of socialist regimes which refuse to unclinch their fists, enslaving their people in poverty. Why should I bailout the Indian bureaucrats who are too stupid or too selfish to realize that their planning only causes harm?
Your meaningless criticisms are laughable. The FED continuously monetizes government debt via inflation in order to finance our utopian welfare state. And then, when prices rise, and real wages fall, capitalism is to blame! When the government over-taxes capital and supports labor cartels firms go over-seas. But again, capitalism is to blame! If only individual interests were in-line with special interests and government interests!!
The socialists arguments against capitalism are absurd. It’s like objecting to gravity. A lunatic may object to the strength of gravity on Earth. He may say, “Imagine what life would be like if gravity wasn’t as powerful as it is now! What fun would it be to jump 70 feet in the air!” He may add, “of course, we need some gravity, but our current condition is too restrictive.” He may be right; it would be fun to jump 70 feet in the air. Nevertheless, that statement is absolutely ridiculous. When the socialist complains about capitalism, he’s really just complaining about the existence of scarcity.
Get over it. Your utopian society never existed, and never will. Time to meet reality.
Should I criticize Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, or what about China? Would this make you more comfortable?
‘Jeez, the free market runs the governments. First lesson of imperialism?’
Explain this statement.
Then how does Indonesia, Taiwan, India, Guatamala, China, etc all where private property exists (along with mass poverty), not constitute as capitalism?
The burden is on capitalism and it is its own problem if its unable to create this utopian free market free of government intervention.
You bundle up every non working example of private property and incorrectly call them socialism.
Heres a good START for you.
Mass poverty and explotiations are nothing more than just “emotional pleas”? How ridiculous. The horrible conditions of sweatshops, the massive exploitation and hard working conditions do not at all imply a failure of private property?
At least if you argued that your vision of capitalism is much different than this, but to critique me for caring about the conditions of humanity is god dam ridiculous.
???
Strawman. Wipe the tears off your eyes and stop button mashing your keyboard.
Stop throwing around your useless statements without providing facts. We are not in a state of scarcity.
There is enough food to feed the world.
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html
Currently 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth, yet your only argument is that we need to produce 50x what we do now, so that we can have people not starve to death while people own yachtes in their yatches.
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjsshqyAFh8
Edit: Yup there you go."
That video was only pointing out that the sweatshops offered employment that was better than the alternatives, which is 100% true. I don’t think anyone denies that the conditions are bad relative to the average USA citizens working conditions. If merely acknowledging that sweatshops offer better employment than the alternatives is defending sweatshops then I guess I am guilty as well. However you must ask yourself, why are these people so poor in the first place? Why are their wages so low? Why is a sweatshop the most productive job they can find?
"From what I seen, Ancaps have been very hypocritical and use double-standards in their analysis.
If they can find some information how some African country has improved, then its used as evidence that capitalism is working. When you point out to a country where private property exists, but yet its people are miserable, then its not because of capitalism but state intervention, and the like."
Private property merely existing doesn’t mean there is free market capitalism. Your lack of understanding about how free market capitalism really works could also be contributing to your perception that Ancaps use double-standards in their analysis. However some of them make capitalism out to be perfect when in fact it is not, nothing human is.
‘Stop throwing around your useless statements without providing facts. We are not in a state of scarcity.’
Then I challenge you to rip up your paycheck and live in your post scarcity garden of eden.
](http://www.ssqq.com/ARCHIVE/images/russian%20road%2031a.jpg){kind=link}