CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Why capitalism is becoming anachronistic
1: Due to the rise of unprecedented automation and AI the jobs which are considered "low class" will be eliminated entirely eventually so under capitalism there will be a massive abundance of resources with huge segments of the population having no access to resources due to a lack of social construct points resulting from unemployment.
2: Capitalism is unscientific and it's existence is predicated on the majority of people being unscientific and uneducated in general as it requires large amounts of people to be little more than beasts of burden and to believe in social constructs as if they are a law of nature.
3: Capitalism creates less and less innovation and "economic freedom" over time because the more land and resources are already owned by the upper class the less room there is for entrepreneurship, and the more large corporations monopolize industries the more people become cogs in those machines rather than pursuing their own ideas.
4: established financial interests inhibit progress. For example we have the technology and resources to replace old trains with more environmentally friendly, energy efficient and faster electromagnetically powered ones. But the financial interests involved don't want that, because the established order of things benefits those who are profiting from the materials and fuel sources which are already being used. Capitalism makes people do things which are completely irrational, like fighting to keep people using outdated technology because a fabricated system of social constructs makes it so that they are given huge amounts of entitled-beorgiosie-parasite-points by holding the human race back technologically.
5: Jews created capitalism to enslave the human race because interdimensional aliens told them to do it.
That was a good transcript from whatever medium you copied it.
Predictably though, and in keeping with all such publications which are critical of the status quo it does not set out in detail a feasible alternative to the existing private, free market economy.
Any wannabe political revolutionary can bellow from the roof tops about the shortcomings of the current economic system but, it would take a (group of) pragmatic, highly intelligent and serious constitutional reformer(s) to produce a workable economic system to replace the existing capitalist system.
To date I have never seen evidence of any such viable substitution being released for critical scrutinizing.
That was a good transcript from whatever medium you copied it.
I am flattered that my on-the-fly half assed speed typing is good enough to be mistaken for a "good transcript" that you assume I must have copied.
Predictably though, and in keeping with all such publications which are critical of the status quo it does not set out in detail a feasible alternative to the existing private, free market economy.
Would you like to extensively and openly discuss my feasible alternative, or are you looking for more of a thesis?
Well, present your proposed, all inclusive alternative global economic strategy and I shall study it dispassionately.
Perhaps the time has come for capitalism to be replaced with a more balanced pecuniary structure, so it is in this context that I am most eager to see your draft recommendations.
I don't intend to, nor shall I criticize your well thought out plan gratuitously, but I shall, respectfully point out any flaws I feel it may be contain.
As already stated, all I'm looking for is your, or anyone's, realistic and constructive alternative to the current free market economy which awards ambition, encourages, innovation, entrepreneurial enterprise, efficiency and competitiveness.
I would strongly reiterate that I am not seeking to turn your proposals into an unwarranted fault find exercise.
Indeed, if I feel that your thinking on this topic is fundamentally unsound I shall refrain from commenting.
However, permit to point out that it was you, and not I, who made an extensive criticism of the status quo so the onus is on you to step up to the mark and submit your new order economic master plan as failing to do so will render your original declaration meaningless.
I was planning to do this all along but I didn't do it immediately because it's going to take a while and I didn't feel like it at the time. Judging from your premature reply everything you said about being reasonable and civil was a load of crap but I expected that anyway. I know all too well the extent of your bias and disdain for collectivist sentiments so I don't expect to convince you or receive any kind of constructive feedback but I will do it anyway just to practice articulating it.
The system I ultimately advocate is called a Resource Based Economy. A more familiar set of terms which also describes what it is would be "technocratic socialism". What that essentially means is that everyone is equally entitled to resources but the overall decision-making is done through a process of determining the best course of action rather than through democracy or authority placed in individuals. This is not to say that individuals will not make personal choices, or that democracy won't be used in certain contexts, or even that there won't be individuals who have more of a say in certain things. It means that every decision that is made which effects society will be made using an appropriate methodology. The exact methodology which is used depends on the issue at hand, but the point is the decisions are no longer based on authority or opinion but on a science-based process of determining the objectively optimal way to do things.
In order to understand how this would work, it is important to realize that this system is not meant to be implemented in the world as it is now. It can only work in a society which is both culturally and technologically more advanced than humans are now. In order to get there it will require multiple stages of transformation but I'll probably get more into that later if you want. Capitalism is not something which has existed forever or will exist forever, it is just another stage in a process of socio-economic evolution. Just as feudalism was necessary for capitalism to exist, other forms of socialism are necessary for the RBE to exist. RBE is very similar to Communism but differs in it's implementation and it's "technocratic" elements. I disagree with Marx for instance, on his method of achieving socialism by replacing the old state with a new one. I think that the state can "wither away" without a bloody revolution and that things can change more gradually. That is not to say I am an old fashioned Soc-Dem though, because I am not. My method is more elaborate than their purely top down strategy. It involves a combination of that as well as a more grass roots changing of the culture but the details of that are too complicated to explain to someone who isn't an "insider" with this type of thing.
More on the dynamic of power/decision making in the RBE and then I will get into how "property" and "ownership" will be handled.
In a pure technocracy the decisions are made by expert "social engineers" and/or by AI programmed to be more logical and impersonal than human beings. This of course sounds very dystopian and probably would be, the RBE however is approximately 70% socialist and 30% technocracy. The Socialism I am talking about is not a centralized state run system but true, fully collectivized socialism. That means there is no state and there is no monetary system, in fact it is much more like democracy than I may have insinuated above but understanding why is a bit tricky. In order to work an RBE needs the general public to be educated and far more objective and enlightened than the people our current cultures produce. The methodological approach I mentioned before would not be something done by a few experts or authority figures but would be taught to every single person in the society. As you might expect, there will always be people who are more intelligent or knowledgeable in certain ways than others so there will be people who are "authorities" in certain fields but there will not be any kind of central decision making body. In an RBE system everyone has the same right to say "this is how things should be" but the one with the best ideas will always be listened to because collective decision making is a scientific process rather than an opinion pole or a government mandate, and as long as you aren't hurting society or any individual there is nothing stopping you from going somewhere else and doing your own thing if you don't like how things are. To reach an RBE system we need to re-condition society in a way that produces reasonable and critical thinkers who are capable of self governance and seeing the long-term benefits of cooperation.
Now on to the issue of "property rights". Property is a social construct, and as such it is not objective, and therefor it is not befitting of a technical culture wherein objectivity is among the highest virtues. In an RBE everyone essentially owns everything and owns nothing equally. This is not to say you can't have "things of your own" but just that there is no social construct involved. In other words you can still have "your own" car or house etc. that is designated for your use, but it's designation is respected out of reason (in order for society to function optimally people must respect each other plus there is no incentive to "steal" because everyone has access to resources) rather than morality or laws. Now you may be wondering how things like this would be enforced if the culture should fail someone in bestowing them with reason and civility, the answer to which is that self-defense is permissible to keep the peace and that the overall collective will side with you if you are in the right and defend you. I will go over in more detail how the peace is kept momentarily. For now I should address the lack of money, which to you would mean a lack of incentive for doing work. As I said in the debate description the "low class" jobs will be phased out in the future, so convincing people to scrub toilets without paying them is a non-issue. Just like with the "crime" issue it mostly comes down to how people are conditioned, by which I do not mean "brainwashed" but rather taught the critical thinking and given the positive upbringing necessary to want to do constructive things because benefiting society is a benefit to yourself, because you know that the more everyone contributes the more things improve. This is the long-term benefit of cooperation I mentioned earlier, something which few people could imagine trusting in for society as a whole because it requires a maturity which few people currently have. Why contribute when you could leech off others and screw them over right? Well in an RBE it's not like they will simply let free loaders and destructive behavior freely slide, but on top of that people will just not think the same as they do now. This brings us to the issue of "crime", they will not see it as an issue of being "immoral" but of being objectively stupid. Anything you do which is good and constructive builds up the civilization that you benefit from every day, and thus it is inherently logical for everyone to cooperate with and build each other up rather than fuck each other over and harm each other, and it is objectively stupid to do destructive things to society. In our current society you are programmed with subjective morality and threatened with man-made laws, but all it takes is for you to simply not give a fuck and think you can get away with it in order for you to break those rules. It is also INCENTIVIZED to do destructive things in many cases, because it is often more beneficial to the individual. Only in a society where everyone equally owns everything and you are taught from the beginning what makes society work optimally to everyone's benefit including your own can these behaviors be bypassed by no longer incentivizing them or allowing for the conditions that produce them. When everyone is born with the same access to food, shelter education etc. and all the things which are necessary for healthy human development then there will be no more thieves and murderers. A person does not simply "choose" to steal, they steal because they do not have things, a person does not simply "choose" to murder, they have mental health issues which have developed for a reason and could have been mitigated with the right know-how.
At least you are sufficiently honest and realistic to admit defeat.
You see dear loser, life is a competition into which we are all automatically entered at birth.
Capitalism is the name of this competition and the rules, which have existed since the first one celled life form appeared on earth, are simple.
The intelligent and strong shall prosper and flourish while the weak minded and feeble shall perish.
Social revolution has created a society in which the capable support the incapable, who sooner or later recognize their low ranking in nature's competition and then, decide to blame their failings on the competition.
The physic' of all losers is akin to individual athletes or sporting teams blaming their defeat on their competitors being too good for them.
It really is embarrassingly pathetic reading or listening to the protests and grievances of life's losers.
As losers MUST, ABSOLUTELY MUST, have their noses rubbed in the shit of their self pitying, moralistic drivel shutting up is not an option or else they will start to believe their own rhetoric.
Do I take the absence of the publication of your blueprint for a global economic revolution to be an admission that you are just another clueless bellyaching 'also ran' who wishes to change the rules so as to favour the losers?
1: Due to the rise of unprecedented automation and AI !
3: Capitalism creates less and less innovation !
I can see how you could argue those points are mutually contradictory, but that would be a simplistic view. What we don't know is the innovation which would potentially occur in a society where everybody found it equally easy to enter the field of science. For example, what inventions would have emerged from Sub-Saharan Africa were the people there not semi-permanently fighting famine and disease? To assume capitalism provides peak innovation with no evidence to support that would be a childish mistake.
4: established financial interests inhibit progress. For example we have the technology and resources to replace old trains with more environmentally friendly, energy efficient and faster electromagnetically powered ones. But the financial interests involved don't want that, because the established order of things benefits those who are profiting from the materials and fuel sources which are already being used. Capitalism makes people do things which are completely irrational, like fighting to keep people using outdated technology because a fabricated system of social constructs makes it so that they are given huge amounts of entitled-beorgiosie-parasite-points by holding the human race back technologically.
Dummy how is it you will make new trains and develop new rail systems without a fuel source because Wind and Solar will not provide you with the completely irrational train of thought that encompasses your pea brain !!!!!!
Did your dumb ass show us again how stupid you are ???????????????
Capitalism is unscientific and it's existence is predicated on the majority of people being unscientific and uneducated in general as it requires large amounts of people to be little more than beasts of burden and to believe in social constructs as if they are a law of nature.
Capitalism creates less and less innovation
For example we have the technology and resources to replace old trains with more environmentally friendly, energy efficient and faster electromagnetically powered ones.
Now the above you posted will be a twisted tale you must figure out !!!!!!!!!!!!!
How does all the nonsense in your pea brain make a coherent sentence ?
He's absolutely right mate. The majority of people are unscientific.
Science has become a field of elitists, where one needs to acquire funding from wealthy backers (or the state) in order to compete, and that's ignoring the fact that, in order to even become a top level scientist in the first place, you need a stack of money for tuition. The same also applies to other notable fields like law and medicine. While it is still possible to practice law as a person brought up in poverty, that is rarely the case with either medicine or science. Just look at what happened to world class scientists like Tesla to see how capitalism oppresses scientific innovation.
You make some good points, albeit with a bad attitude. So, what would you suggest?
A bad attitude is what you call recognizing the problems inherent in a system?
What I suggest is scientific socialism.
You seem to be saying, as I do, that, if capitalism is not somewhat controlled, we , the rest of us, may as well resign ourselves to slavery??
"Controlled" is not good enough, it needs to be phased out, but social democracy is better than plain capitalism for sure.
Putin's oligarchs, and, if Trump wins the next election … HIS oligarchs …. worry me much more than Jewish capitalists!
You called Trump a commie, which is insane. Putin is not a commie, he is a kleptocrat, russia hasn't been communist for years, and Trump being a commie is literally just the most ridiculous thing a person could say.
Controlled is good enough for me, and, I think, Bernie. You have a right to your opinion, of course.
"When you lie down with dogs, you get fleas." Trump is "colluding" with a (used to be) card carrying commie! (Whether he is with the "techies" or not)! I also have a right to MY opinion and I don't give a rat's ass if it's "TECHNICALLY CORRECT". Putin was considered a communist killer when I was younger, he hasn't changed his spots! (IMO, of course ;-)! I don't care if Trump is a commie, "literally" or not! He's one of the DOGS W/FLEAS!
"When you lie down with dogs, you get fleas." Trump is "colluding" with a (used to be) card carrying commie!
I think the last twenty years have proved fairly conclusively that Putin was never a communist. He simply grew up in a communist system. As the most powerful man in Russia (and possibly the world) he is free to turn Russia back towards communism if he wants, but he appears to significantly prefer the system of oligarchy he presently presides over.
If Putin were a communist then why would he ever forge an alliance with Trump in the first place? Trump represents the epitome of capitalist corruption so he would be the perfect scapegoat to convince the Russian people of a return to Bolshevism.
Putin was considered a communist killer when I was younger
He's just a killer, Alfie. Ideology has nothing to do with it. The Bolsheviks were all ideologues, right up until Stalin. But it was Stalin who killed communism in Russia in all but name. By the time of Putin's era most Russians were unhappy and wanted change.
lol fuck America. You have a bad attitude (and a total lack of understanding) about communism because of American propaganda.
I also have a right to MY opinion and I don't give a rat's ass if it's "TECHNICALLY CORRECT".
This is a major problem with how you think. REALITY doesn't give a rats ass about ANYONE'S opinion. I am concerned with reality, opinions are meaningless to me.
That's fine. You can ignore my opinions with my blessing as yours would also be meaningless to me …. as well as your version of "reality". You have a nice day... in hell.
The IDIOT made claim it worked in 47 of the 50 states and 15 countries.
Then the IDIOT types it's wild spun response that goes like this and i quote it's words-You seem to be saying, as I do, that, if capitalism is not somewhat controlled, we , the rest of us, may as well resign ourselves to slavery??
STUPID were you a SLAVE your entire working career that you so graciously informed us of ??????????
You seem to be saying, as I do, that, if capitalism is not somewhat controlled, we , the rest of us, may as well resign ourselves to slavery??
Alfie brother, you can't "control" a system actually designed to create inequality and exploit poverty. That's like trying to "control" airplanes by making them into ground vehicles. If the system is doing the opposite of what you want it to do then obviously you are using the wrong system. No amount of control is going to stop capitalism from creating inequality because that is what it is designed to do by its very nature. And, if one factors time into the equation, then obviously that inequality is -- as a general rule -- only going to increase, not decrease.
What a warped view of the world you have. No system has created more wealth and raised the standard of living for more people than capitalism- NONE!
Capitalism has killed more people than any ideology on earth.
The USSR was the fastest country that ever existed when it comes to going from a low status shit hole to a world superpower, and it did it with socialism.
You love capitalism because you inherited a vast sum of wealth without working for it.
Name any country on the planet not practicing capitalism in some form.
Oh, so now you agree that Venezuela is capitalist? Strange, because you have been spamming the board with shitposts arguing that it is socialist. Another reason why we can automatically disregard everything you say. You're a tedious liar who changes his story from one moment to the next.
The USSR was the fastest country that ever existed when it comes to going from a low status shit hole to a world superpower, and it did it with
Why not introduce your version of “socialism” into some of the African shitholes you keep bleating about? It would work wonders all you would have to find is a new Stalin
Capitalism has killed more people than any ideology on earth.
No, totalitarianism and theocratic rule have.
The USSR was the fastest country that ever existed when it comes to going from a low status shit hole to a world superpower, and it did it with socialism.
The USSR rose through the enslavement of its people via totalitarian rule from a low-status shit hole to a superpower shit hole that is now defunct. I guess you forgot later.
You love capitalism because you inherited a vast sum of wealth without working for it.
No, Komrade, I got my piece of the pie by going out and getting it; it was not handed to me.
Utterly retarded bullshit. Capitalism has a death list longer than one of Amarel's shitposts. Tens, if not hundreds of millions.
The USSR rose through the enslavement of its people via totalitarian rule
LOL! Shut the fuck up you idiot. It was the fact that the USSR was under totalitarian Tsarist rule that convinced Lenin to start a revolution in the first place.
Try coming up with an argument which doesn't involve you arguing that black is white.
Firstly, I am under no obligation to "refute" the absurd lies and half-truths of vicious Nazi big mouths. Secondly, you are now purposefully trying to distort his claim, which was:-
The USSR rose through the enslavement of its people via totalitarian rule
The USSR did not rise through the enslavement of its people and totalitarian rule. The Soviets were never enslaved and totalitarianism came much later when Stalin obtained control of the empire.
It’s kind of hilarious that you throw out right wing villains and right wingers reject them, often claiming they belong to you. Right wingers throw out left wing villains (with many to choose from) and you have to explain away or lie about their villainy, but you can’t seem to reject them.
It’s kind of hilarious that you throw out right wing villains
It's kind of hilarious that you have spent the last hour attacking Lenin with fallacy and lies, and then accuse me of throwing out right wing villains. Are you literally living on a different planet?
Lenin is a left wing villain that I am more than happy to put out there as such. You constantly throw Hitler and Mussolini out there as examples. That wasn’t an accusation, it was an observation.
When you do that, right wingers have to distance themselves from said villains. They can do that because right wing America has different values than right wing Europe. But you can’t manage to distance yourself from the myriad villains associated with your disgusting ideology. That’s funny.
Lenin is a left wing villain that I am more than happy to put out there as such.
But then not only are you contradicting yourself, but you are trying to force the premise upon us that Lenin was/is a villain without ever producing any proof he was anything remotely like a villain. He was worshipped by the entire Soviet state as its saviour and emancipator for close to half a century, so frankly you just need to shut your stupid fucking mouth and stop writing dumb shit.
So, Lenin was a benevolent ruler who was duly elected to represent the people?
Lenin violently overthrew an oppressive totalitarian monarchy. I'll take your pathetic straw man argument to be an unconditional surrender. Nice playing with you, moron.
pure socialism stifles creativity and motivation. At least to some extent. Why work your brain or body harder if you don’t become better off.
Let's say there are two farms, a capitalist farm and a socialist farm. On the capitalist farm a lot of people are working, but they only get a little bit of what is produced, while one guy who does no work but "owns" the farm gets the majority of what is produced. On the socialist farm, everyone works and everyone is free to come up with ideas to make the farm better, and everyone has access to what the farm produces.
How do you plan on making them work if they refuse?
and everyone is free to come up with ideas to make the farm better
Which puts you directly back into politics and tribes.
and everyone has access to what the farm produces.
And if they refuse to work?
But let's cut the shit Nom. Most products are not magic apple trees in a garden in the year 5000 BC. They're video games, cell phones, vehicles, etc, and your stupid system has no idea who, if anybody should have access to or be made to make these products.
You keep using this dumb ass farm analogy when the world isn't a fucking farm.
Let's say there are two farms, a capitalist farm and a socialist farm. On the capitalist farm a lot of people are working, but they only get a little bit of what is produced
On the capitalist farm a person agrees to work for the farmer after agreeing terms.
while one guy who does no work but "owns" the farm gets the majority of what is produced.
Most farmers work harder than their own workers and why shouldn’t the farmer make a profit? He’s the one who took it on as a business having bought or inherited the farm.
The workers make a choice to work for the farmer and if not happy with conditions can vote with their feet
On the socialist farm, everyone works and everyone is free to come up with ideas to make the farm better,
Believe it or not comrade a lot of capitalist farmers like to have feedback from their workers only a fool wouldn’t
and everyone has access to what the farm produces.
Oddly enough I’ve known farm workers who are fed daily at the farm and given produce to take home , but no doubt this does not suit your evil capitalist narrative
You socialists always bring up this utopian type farm scenario, and all the socialist utopian scenarios rely on everyone being lovely people who only have the interests of the larger group at heart and all work together for a similar goal.
Reality is real socialists are people like you who are throughly nasty individuals who spew hatred and bile at most everyone on site, imagine having to rely on the likes of scum like you in a socialist society? .......Ohhhh wait .....it worked for Stalin
On the capitalist farm a person agrees to work for the farmer after agreeing terms.
Again with this stupid capitalist logic. Do you ever wonder why so many people who don't have any money agree to these "entirely voluntary" contracts with people who have lots of money, which entail them working to make people who have lots of money even more money just so they can have a little bit of the profit to keep a roof over their head? It's because it's not actually a voluntary contract, when you don't already have enough money to start your own business you are FORCED to work for someone else to survive unless you want to live in the woods and forage for berries all your life.
Most farmers work harder than their own workers
You got statistics for that? Even if it were true, which it's not, that doesn't change the fact that in the majority of businesses the owner's job is to sit on his fat ass smoking cigars and sipping brandy.
why shouldn’t the farmer make a profit? He’s the one who took it on as a business having bought or inherited the farm.
Because having social construct points or being handed things by your parents does not make you better than everyone else or entitled to own the means of production. If there must be an "owning" class and a "serving" class it should at the very least be based on merit rather than nepotism and/or how well you serve the owners that made you rich enough to join them.
Again with this stupid capitalist logic. Do you ever wonder why so many people who don't have any money agree to these "entirely voluntary" contracts
They agree because they want to earn a decent wage most working class people I know are happy with their lot as they pay mortgages , own cars and shockingly go on holidays also
It's because it's not actually a voluntary contract,
Really , a guy asks for a job on a farm and that’s not “voluntarily” ......oh dear
when you don't already have enough money to start your own business you are FORCED
Ahhh , so in your world everyone should own their own business got ya .
I started out working for someone else and then worked and still do for myself, you can start a business on very little
Most farmers work harder than their own workers
You got statistics for that?
But it wouldn’t make any difference to you would it?
Even if it were true, which it's not,
There you go
that doesn't change the fact that in the majority of businesses the owner's job is to sit on his fat ass smoking cigars and sipping brandy.
Another sweeping generalization
Because having social construct points or being handed things by your parents does not make you better than everyone else or entitled to own the means of production.
Translation.....if my parents leave me a business I’m not entitled to it or if I invest my earnings in building a business I’m not entitled to it , welcome to Socialism
If there must be an "owning" class and a "serving" class it should at the very least be based on merit
But when I worked for others my merit was recognised because I am particularly good at what I do
rather than nepotism and/or how well you serve the owners that made you rich enough to join them.
Nepotism rarely comes into it I know plenty like me who’ve done very well in life by excelling at what I do , your type of worldview requires a human population of robots with fuck all ambition and no creativity all working for a common goal which you’ve yet to define
It is strange to you because I operate on the basis of facts, whereas you cannot see past your own stupid ideological beliefs. That is why you say idiotic things like "they agree because they want to earn a decent wage" without explaining WHY they want to earn a decent wage. People have to obtain money in order to survive, which is not their choice, but you seem to believe that it IS a choice. That is beyond strange and over the border into plain stupid.
Bullshit. A total, jaw-dropping capitalist myth. It is capitalism which stifles creativity because it turns people into mindless robots who repetitively perform incredibly mundane tasks for a pay cheque. When I was 16 I once had a job picking staples out of pieces of paper for 8 hours per day. How does that assist my creativity?
Now contrast that to a society where you don't even have to work if you don't want to. A society where you are free to paint, or write, or make music, without panicking that you have no food in your cupboard.
Bullshit. A total, jaw-dropping capitalist myth. It is capitalism which stifles creativity
1)The ambition to get money enhances creativity. There's creativity all around me because of the desire to get paid.
2)Socialism stifles creativity. Johnny wanted to be an artist, but since none of the other socialists on your magic farm wanted to pick grapes in Looney Tunesville, Johnny was forced to pick fucking grapes.
Bullshit. A total, jaw-dropping capitalist myth. It is capitalism which stifles creativity because it turns people into mindless robots who repetitively perform incredibly mundane tasks for a pay cheque.
Nonsense , I started out my working life doing restoration work in churches where I used to restore artworks , I loved the job and was very well paid for something I would have done for a third of the money
When I was 16 I once had a job picking staples out of pieces of paper for 8 hours per day. How does that assist my creativity?
A lot of people do crappy jobs once in a while bet you don’t do it now
Now contrast that to a society where you don't even have to work if you don't want to.
Ahhh come on , and you don’t think the rest of the socialists might get a bit pissed if their neighbour says “ fuck this I won’t be into work anymore men I’m going to lie in in the morning and go fishing in future “ .....now that’s bullshit buddy
A society where you are free to paint, or write, or make music, without panicking that you have no food in your cupboard.
Right so sit at home all day strumming a guitar , writing or painting and someone else will empty your bins , cook your meals and do all your share of the work .......this sounds exactly like what you accuse the employer classes of doing .......ouch 😱
Isn't it cool Con? I looked in the dictionary and socialism is state control of all production. No mention of healthcare, police, fire department. None of it. Thank God for capitalism to fund it all.
Obviously barring point number five, that's a brilliantly well-written argument, FM. Difficult to disagree with it because of course you are absolutely right.
Jews created capitalism to enslave the human race because interdimensional aliens told them to do it.
Hello hater:
Nobody created capitalism just like nobody created eating..
Imagine a cave man - a Jewish cave man if you like, made a big kill. Then another Jewish cave man dropped by. He had some extra water.. So, the Jewish cave men looked at each other, scratched their heads, and made a trade.. They didn't know it was capitalism.. They just knew they were happy.
OR
A Jewish alien came down from the mount, and gave us the law.
Nobody created capitalism just like nobody created eating
Nobody invented eating because eating is a biological function. Capitalism isn't a biological function or a force of nature and hence somebody invented it.
Imagine a cave man - a Jewish cave man if you like, made a big kill. Then another Jewish cave man dropped by. He had some extra water.. So, the Jewish cave men looked at each other, scratched their heads, and made a trade.. They didn't know it was capitalism.. They just knew they were happy.
Trade is not capitalism and I have personally explained this to you at least half a dozen times. Capitalists hijacked trade and transitioned its purpose. Trade was conducted historically on the basis of personal necessity and/or desire. Capitalists changed it into a means of acquiring personal wealth and/or power by introducing the entirely separate component called PROFIT.
I don't like you Excon. I don't like you at all. You're a liar, an idiot and a venomous little prick.
