Capitalism Is Not The Most Efficient System Ever Devised By Man

Capitalism is very inefficient; for example, wasting fuel shipping Chinese-manufactured shirts or shoes to the United States when there are plenty of jobless Americans able and willing to make shirts and shoes here at home. End of story.
Exploiting Chinese workers over there when we could pay workers a good wage here at home.


[video=youtube;yKxnsnULwpU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKxnsnULwpU[/video]

 

There are plenty of other countries where the people live under a different system. Plane tickets are pretty cheap, you're welcome to move to one of them.

 

Socialism collapsed due to the plague of revisionists. The Eastern Bloc relied on top-down purges to prevent corruption, but that stops when the corruption stopped. China tried something new with the cultural revolution to try to keep the country on the socialist road through mass criticism of the party, but the poor organization lead to a lot of chaos and opportunism.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist because MLM looks at those failures and learns from them. A socialist state can only be kept socialist if the power remains in the hands of the masses and the masses understand the importance of being vigilant against capitalist roaders and social imperialists. Socialism should remain in the same breath as democracy and freedom.

 

Of course not. The socialism Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers is the Best in the Entire World.

 

Will you be murdering anyone who disagree's with you? Or will you let the lowly working class starve to death to institute your new world order?

Lenin, like Stalin and Mao, really sought power to force their will upon the masses and therefore create a paradise of socialism. They all loathed the independence and intransigence of the peasants, and didn’t mind seeing them starve to death to make room for a new order. All 3 leaders caused peasant famines, as well. Marx himself considered peasants the “petit bourgeoisie” class, and therefore an enemy of industrial labor.

Marxism–Leninism - “Red Terror”
Lenin (not his real name) instituted the “Red Terror” or the systematic elimination of millions of people, including members of his own political party. His single outstanding personality characteristic was hatred and being a lover of revolution and violence.

Marxist–Leninists hate capitalism. It remains the official ideology of the ruling parties of China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam, and was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union making up the Eastern Bloc.


Mao - a ruthless atheist dictator
Mao the leader of Chinese Communism was the worst of all dictators. In total he killed roughly 70 million people for his selfish reasons. He murdered anyone who opposed him.

He denounece worship of a humans, yet put himself above god and launched the culture revolution to destory anyone he perceived as a threat to his power. Yet his portrait hanged in Tiananmen square. He created a cult of personality. During his time in power, everyone was wearing "Maoist pajamas", an ugly gray uniform that made everyone visually the same. So much for individuality!...

 

Capitalism creates great wealth, but it also creates great poverty. Capitalism must be regulated.

 

Sorry capitalism didn't cause that government did. Oh and capitalism wasn't devised any more than gravity was devised.

 

The number of people who utterly fail to grasp the tenets of Capitalism never ceases to amaze me.

Capitalism does not create poverty. Stupid lazy people who make poor choices in life create poverty.

 

Looking at all economic systems and how they have functioned over time, makes it clear that capitalism is the most successful among them. It certainly can lead to problems but, most derive from how it is used by government and society.

 

Socialism is very inefficient also. For example, Pol Pot often used a whole bullet per execution, when he could have lined up his victims just right and got several with one shot.

Capitalism gave you, for relatively tiny cost to you, the cheap machine you are typing out inaccurate whines on, the tech that allows Wolff's moronic videos to be streamed to morons, and this forum, where you can whine to your heart's content about all the "inefficiencies" of capitalism while sitting in climate controlled comfort eating and drinking whatever from wherever.

Capitalism's greatest failing is generating so much luxury, quality of life, free time and freedom generally that the um "less gifted" among us have all the time and wherewithal in the world to sit on the internet and gripe about things they don't understand instead of scrabbling about spending all their time keeping their inferior selves alive as they did just a few short centuries ago.

 

Sorry, but your experiments have cost way too many lives. You're going to have to go this route yourself, or with other like-minded people, which I believe you already said you can't do. You love the power of the state in order to enforce your beliefs, and that is why socialism/communism will always fail. Then it's right back to capitalism which doesn't require guns and killing people and insanity.

 

if you're worried about fuel consumption from clothing manufactured in china... do you have any sheep or grow cotton on your own land to make your own clothes? or do you still buy them from someone else? because thats more efficient than growing the materials and making it yourself? more people in america can afford the clothing because its less expensive when made in other countries, do you want people to have less clothing? or pay more for clothing? or just have less "stuff" in general?

but lets tackle this big word "capitalism" you blame for this "inefficient" production... capitalism doesn't prevent clothing from being made in america, consumers demanding cheaper clothing makes them move production to less expensive areas... consumers could just as easily demand that clothing be made here, and refuse to buy foreign made goods... but consumers seem to be sticking with their desire to purchase cheap things rather than american things... so capitalism didn't do this to america, CONSUMERS did this to america... and guess what, consumers in socialist countries do it, consumers in communist countries do it, consumers in every country do this, because consumers are the ones to blame... they control the power, if they would use it... capitalism just responds to consumer demand, its not the blame, the consumer is...

P.S. how many "made in foreign country" items do you own in your household right now, where were the nails made to hold your home together, did you simply choose a contractor who used the least expensive nails that fit the design, or did you demand as a consumer, american made nails? you could buy them, but I bet you chose not to... is capitalism at fault for that, or YOU... you realize if americans demanded american made products when building homes, you could add a million jobs to the economy, but thats only if YOU demand the american made goods, and pay more for them... so the power is in YOUR hands, but YOU have to choose to use it...

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/made-america-blueprint-creating-jobs/story?id=14719487

look at that, just 5% more american made products used to build your home, would add an estimated 220,000 american jobs... but did YOU make that choice?

 

Capitalism is word made up by an 19th century hippy pissed off at free people making free choices about what to buy and what to sell.

The purpose of an economy is to provide ourselves goods and services.

There is no better system than ourselves making free choices about what to buy or sell and whether to buy or sell.

 

Exactly and sensible regulation is a proper role of government.

Regulate = make regular. It does not mean "prohibit".

 

Yes, I'm a villain from a saturday morning cartoon instead of a real person with nuanced opinions. My business card says evil on it and I kick puppies for fun.

It stands out to me a lot for some reason how you felt the need to remark on the fact that Lenin was actually a pseudonym for Vladimir Ilyvich Ulyanov. You just assume that I must be uneducated on the topic of socialist history, despite the fact that I obsessively study it, even back when I was a liberal.

You misunderstand the place of the peasantry in marxist theory. For one thing, Trotsky was actually looked down upon for his opinion that the Peasants as a class had no revolutionary potential. Marx didn't consider the peasantry to be petite bourgeois. The petty bourgeoisie actually refers to small-scale merchants and business owners. Your first paragraph also claims that a famine happened under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, but no Soviet famine happened in the 20s, during Lenin's administration. There isn't a single truthful sentence in your first paragraph.

I'm also well aware of the Red Terror. The Red Terror didn't result in millions of anything. Even Robert Conquest would think you're full of it for that remark. I don't agree with the Red Terror, but war brings out the ugliest in a lot of people. You have to understand that Russia was facing enemies on all sides and was truly desperate.

China, Laos, and Vietnam are nominally Marxist-Leninist, but they've turned their backs on all of the principles of Marxism-Leninism. The power of the working class was betrayed due to the vanguard's lack of theoretical advancement causing too much power to be directed away from small-scale worker's organizations and towards the party.

It doesn't make sense to blame Mao for the famine when China suffered over a thousand famines in the course of a few thousand years. China was the land of famine until the communists put a stop to it. Furthermore, the worst excesses of the cultural revolution cannot be blamed on Mao either: The principle of the cultural revolution was that the masses would relentlessly criticize the authorities around them and keep them in line with genuinely democratic principles by holding people responsible for corruption and abuses. The idea that vigilance is necessary for liberty dates back to the American Revolution. Mao can't be blamed for the fact that some people chose to abuse the opportunity to rile up angry mobs against their personal enemies.

Furthermore: Anyone familiar with the power struggles in the Chinese Communist Party would realize that Mao never held absolute power and was constantly in conflict with other factions within the party, and that Mao was by far the most democratic of them. Deng Xiaoping would go on to crush the Tienanmen Square protests and establish China's current status quo of hyper-wealthy and corrupt officials controlling all speech within the country.

None of the common claims from anti-communists hold up under scrutiny.

- - - Updated - - -

Capitalism has killed far more than socialists at their worst. Apparently when a country that had experienced natural famines for hundreds of years on a regular basis experiences one final one during a communist government, communists are responsible for everyone that dies, but when there's more than enough food and some people starve because they just aren't allowed to have it, that's the way things should be.

The thing with capitalist ideology is that capitalism is presented as neutral, the natural starting point. Nobody ever considers that things happen because of capitalism, and it never occurs to people to blame capitalism for all of the horrifying suffering poverty and the exploitation by the upper class causes on capitalism.

 

So you're trying to shove your Marxist-Leninist-Maoist up everyone azz who doesn't want it when instead you could just move to a communist country.

Now that's freedom

Since you're still here, I call BS on your claim.

 

Actually most were killed by asphyxiation by tying a plastic bag around their heads and necks.

 

If you want sufficient education and social programs, capitalism is the best way you are going to be able to pay for them. The idea of a system that emphasizes on bringing revenue to its highest may seem harmful and inefficient, but at the end of the day if you want to pay for your schools and your social security, you're going to need that capitalist revenue to pay for it all

You can say that it is not the most efficient system in the world, but the truth is there is no other system that is any more efficient than capitalism

 

Newsflash: Man hasn't created a perfect system yet.

 

Capitalism is just a tool. The problem isn't that this tool exists and is used, but rather that Americans have been taught to worship this tool rather than evaluate it objectively in each situation. There's no reason why we cannot have socialized medicine delivery and capitalistic development of medical technologies (regulated) at the same time. The effect of capitalism is entirely predictable. People will work hard for profit. Working hard is good, profit can be good or bad. For example overtreating patients in medicine for more profit is bad, while diligently developing new medicines for profit is good.

 

No not quite.

Poverty is not the result of capitalism. It is the result of not engaging in capitalism.

And this assumes real poverty even exists in the US anymore, which is debatable.

 

What would you call it?

 

The above needs repeating 100x a day on this forum. It is a bit early in the net's history to undo all the dishonest semantic damage that leftists have done to the language over the decades in the name of promoting centralized fiat government above all. "Capitalism" is a glaring example of such damage, and in truth is a semantic nullity we unwisely agree to use as shorthand for commercial dealings in a less central, less powerful, highly limited and enumerated state. In short, "capitalism" is really just "voluntary commerce" dressed up as an "ism" for convenient platitudes and fallacious straw-manning.

People who make their living off of central government fiat power, namely the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-MSM Complex, are naturally inclined to adopt Marx's language and "pidgin socialism" to their aim of growing the state while enjoying the benefits of fiat in the exact same way that free agents enjoy voluntary transactions in "capitalism." Let's take academic professors for example, people who have very often done 0 real work in their lives to exchange in a voluntary system (until they are established enough to start milking the "expert fee" cow,) but derive their livelihood from grants, state funding, and fraudulent, tax funded advertisement PSAs aimed at parents and students promising unrealistic benefits from consuming undifferentiated "education" product of whatever type from wherever. Their whole livelihood depends on fiat government taking more and more from the voluntary private sector, yet we accept what these toads say at face value. 80-95% of them vote and profess leftist politics, and we naively accept that this is because they are "highly educated" and thus know things we don't instead of carefully scrutinizing everything Steven Hawking or this Wolff fellow or some French economist says as "legitimate academic study." Horsesht.

These people poison the youth they can dig their nails into, and are behind a huge percentage of the ugliest forms of irrational SJW activism we see every day now. As others on the forum note, they sit behind the scenes in safety while polluting our culture with vile resentment politics that is oriented towards the same good old fashioned self-interest all politics represents. Yet we give these buzzards some kind of extra credit, due largely to MSM bleatings for decades. When a business owner expands their business, or hires tax counsel in the VOLUNTARY commercial system, it's always GREED GREED GREED, yet when academic shtheels (or other Complex denizens) dishonestly espouse and promote "the failures of capitalism," and in so doing promote a denotatively VIOLENT (involuntary) FIAT system, we follow our MSM masters' lead and ascribe it, at worse, to being "egg-headed" or an "honest mistake" or "social justice" instead of the plain, vile, self-absorbed EVIL that 90% of all VIOLENT FIAT is. THAT misperception is thankfully changing. You can see it here, there everywhere all over public discourse. People have been lied to long enough by Complex minions seeking self-benefit via VIOLENT FIAT that they are catching on. Good, it's about 30 years too late, but maybe not TOO late overall.

And specifically, in respect of Wolff's crooked "failures of capitalism" canards concerning the recent banking meltdown, the US and foreign banking industries are NOT CAPITALISM but highly MIXED industries. The US banking industry is the most highly regulated industry outside a monarchy in human history. For all practical purposes, it is an iteration of THE STATE. Failures of the banking industry, together with the broader financial industry, are BY DEFINITION G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T failings as the US banking system hasn't been anything resembling "capitalist" since the creation of the Fed 100 years ago. This is an indisputable fact of economic history, so whenever you hear asshats talking about 2008 and capitalistic greed in the same sentence, you are hearing either a fool or a practiced, corrupt intentional liar, and should discount everything they say afterward.

Commerce, private sector, voluntary trade. It isn't an "ism" at all, and the next wave of awareness swept in by the internet will sweep out lots of self-interested academic and other Complex semantic weaseling.

 

Who cares about the hundred million innocent men, women and children who were murdered in the name of the three sickos that you worship so much huh?

People like you amaze me, really, you should be a case study.

 

After 25 years living in the United States, I did! Six years ago today, as it happens.