Talk:Capitalism/Archive1

Serious Problems...
A number of them, I'll limit myself to one--the breezy, easy association between capitalist economies and liberal politics. PFoster 18:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Slavery is, in essence, capitalism gone to extremes
Not really--slavery long predates capitalism, and capitalism requires free labour. Read Marx. Slavery, in essence, may be commodification gone to extremes, but not capitalism. PFoster 19:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)


 * "Capitalism" was never a new system. It was just a new name for slavery because for millennia most people didn't think the wage was slavery, & they're amazingly still ignorant about that. There are many forms of slavery. People can even enslave themselves, like working too much, starting their own business, getting married, having children, & many more ways. We should eliminate all work, before automation does, leaving all Americans to starve, so then they'll see (& are seeing) the (USA) wage is the cause of world poverty. Look at Third World Traveler online, & also CLAWS; Creating Livable Alternatives to Wage Slavery. Klop789 (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No one can set the poorest of the poor free (like child & adult prostitutes worldwide) until they can be given $1-2 Million for doing nothing! Their poverty, including our debt slavery, is not their fault, it is all caused by the worldwide system, now forced onto the world's nations by USA, called "Capitalism."! Klop789 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A little fairness
I mean, c'mon --Matias 21:36, 5 November 2008 (EST)
 * Which way do you think it's unfair? I think it's too snarky towards capitalism myself, but I know I might be the minority here. Researcher 21:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)
 * As you pointed out yourself, capitalism is diametrically opposed to slavery, and yet it's arbitrarily portraited as such without a trial. --Matias 14:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)
 * Wait, since when? Capitalism, when working as commonly described, ends up in enslavement of the masses. It might not have literal slavery, but I know that the labourers used to be paid very little (not enough to live off, anyway), and if they DARED to speak against their employer, they were looking at a rotten life. InaVegt 15:03, 6 November 2008 (EST)
 * How about this? The theoretical foundations of capitalism run smack against the theoretical foundations of slavery. The fact that no ideology left to run amuck ever works out properly is the reason we have a mixed economy instead. Researcher 16:10, 6 November 2008 (EST)
 * but Capitalism, in its earlier manifestations, predates its ideological robe. Actually Capitalism just means no legalized coertion, that's why it's so intrinsically opposed to Slavery. In such a context ironically, one could sell oneself (but not others) in bondage under a contract, if forced by circumstance -not by other men-. but that doesn't contradict Capitalism's best virtue: the recognizemente of man as the exclusive owner of his her self. --Matias 15:36, 8 November 2008 (EST)

UNDENT. Ina--slavery is when human beings are owned as property--what you describe is horrible in many ways, but is not slavery. Let's try to use words to refer to what they mean. I also removed all that stuff about capitalism and republics--China has capitalism of a sort, but is no republic, for starters...PFoster 10:32, 9 November 2008 (EST)
 * PFoster--Thanks. One other thing that might need to be fixed is the bit about "conservatives" and the free market.  The article is correct that Republicans put in things like anti-trust laws, etc., however those were not self-described "Conservatives." Teddy Roosevelt, responsible for a lot of this, was a Progressive, after all.  Even Nixon would be considered liberal today on those kinds of issues. Researcher 15:53, 9 November 2008 (EST)
 * I'll ellaborate on this on the article, but yes, I meant Republicans not Conservatives. While I refer to the Progressives as the destructors of American Capitalism of the >1880, I do hold the religious conservative Republicans of the >1990 to be anticapitalists like Saint Reagan with his prohibition (war on drugs or whtvr) and Bush Jr's hangers on with their Sarbanes Oxley of 02.
 * I acknowledge that there is a difference between official slavery and practical slavery. Thing is, in a Capitalist state, the average citizen is practically a slave, even if not officially. InaVegt 16:19, 9 November 2008 (EST)

I don't completely understand the statement that "capitalism is diametrically opposed to slavery". The historical slavery of the American south was basically driven by capitalism in the cotton & tobacco industries, & slave labour is still used in some parts of the world, essentially for reasons of profit. I see this article is defining capitalism as "a free market where, in theory, the right to ownership of your own mind, body, and the fruit of both, is sacrosanct" but that seems a rather rarefied definition which I haven't encountered elsewhere. My understanding is that capitalism simply means a system where the means of production are privately owned and used for private profit, and taking this to its logical extreme, the means of production could include the workers themselves (I.E. slaves) in a completely unregulated capitalist scenario. Capitalism is an economic system, not a human rights stance so I don't see how it inherently rules out slavery.  w easeLOId ~ 16:22, 9 November 2008 (EST)

While I grant "my" definition is rarified, by your own you could see that Pre-Civil War America was not Capitalist, nor very Republican either, since Slaves were not the owners of their base mean of production, their own body. Like today's China, both are driven by Capitalim, but, are themselves Mercantilist. But conveniently, the more efficient a production system is, the freer its human resource ought to be(that's the economical reason for the end of slavery). Not every productive activity en masse means Capitalism, the term is intrinsically related to the question of rights- I'll later ellaborate on the article-. While modern slavery exists (by large!), a modern sweatshop producing footwear in Indonesia is not the case because the workers preferred to take that job over the rice paddy, or the streets. The World is not a bloody rose garden, Capitalism (the force that produces the most roses) is not to blame. --Matias 07:52, 10 November 2008 (EST)


 * I apologize in advance for the length, but I wanted to minimize misunderstanding:
 * Everyone who was considered a person under slavery had a right to their own bodies. This distinction is relatively absurd, regardless.  If you take the American system of slavery, but this time you let the slaves pick which master they could serve (and give them some small ability to change masters), you would have a relatively accurate model of the power relationships under modern capitalism.  Human beings have very real material needs.  Under capitalism those needs are met by exchange.  If (as is nearly ALWAYS the case) the only work anyone will exchange for requires capital inputs, potential workers who do not have access to those inputs (nearly ALWAYS because they have already been claimed by someone else, and that claim is backed up by the implied violence of the state without regard to the problem of justification if that claim is inherently exploitative) must turn to those who do.  This unequal position allows those with that access to demand a tribute in the form of a portion of fruits of the labor that utilizes that capital.
 * In other words, under capitalism, the capitalist is not paid for productive labor. The capitalist is paid for the service of NOT calling in the government to enforce their "right" to prevent everyone else from using a particular piece of property.  If the capitalist were guarding a road and the government didn't have a piece of paper called a constitution, but instead all wore bandannas of the same color, that capitalist would be called a highwayman and the government would properly be called a gang and would still more properly be called /his/ gang.
 * The only reason that those who perform the productive work agree to this setup is because they have no other choice. If they try to work in the factory for themselves, the "owner" (I use quotes because I find absurd the idea that the person who exchanged goods for the factory only to exploit those without a factory has a more legitimate claim to "ownership" of it than the people who work there every day) will call the police (who in turn will call in escalating levels of violence if they should meet resistance) and have them thrown out.  The only other option left to them is simply to not work and starve to death.  Under liberal governments, this sentence has been commuted to merely a life of hardship, but that threat works nearly as well to motivate people to accept the terms offered them.
 * Whether the lash is figurative or literal is hardly relevant to the question of exploitation. In both cases the exploitation comes not from the presence of the threat, but from the willingness of another to take advantage of that situation for their own benefit.  The only functional ethical distinction between slavery and capitalism is that under slavery, the lash is deliberately positioned by the exploiter whereas under capitalism, the exploiter merely preys upon the already unfortunate.  That minor distinction hardly serves to discredit the comparison. -Dsmelser (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to update your Pinko Duckspeak tape to incorporate something cooked up after 1848; the age of such chatter about factories is really starting to show now.
 * Everyone who was considered a person under slavery had a right to their own bodies. Uh, right; tell that to the slaves who could be legally raped because their owners were deemed to own their bodies.
 * ...you would have a relatively accurate model of the power relationships under modern capitalism. Tell that to the large number of small-business owners, the rest of the self-employed, and of course that band of "useless" persons, the lumpenproletariat. Consider also that a prison with all the cell doors locked is quite different from a prison with all those doors welded open.
 * Under capitalism those needs are met by exchange. You would perhaps have it not be by exchange? That generally involves somebody taking something for nothing.
 * ...and that claim is backed up by the implied violence of the state... The function of the State is to introduce the rule of law, which is not present when private property owners are given free rein to hire their own thugs.
 * ...the "owner" (I use quotes because I find absurd the idea... It is, of course, an entirely absurd idea that a person should have any remuneration for the expense of building a factory.
 * ...has a more legitimate claim to "ownership" of it than the people who work there every day)... Pray tell, what would such workers be doing for a living if the factory owner had not built it?
 * Under liberal governments, this sentence has been commuted to merely a life of hardship... It would appear that you, for some reason or other, do not find it absolutely absurd that welfare recipients have more right to the State's money than people who had it taken out of their wages.
 * The only functional ethical distinction... To make a translation of this bullshit, it would appear that by your own admission, while liberation from slavery involves defying the will of a slaver, liberation from capitalism involves defying reality. 08:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I admire you, ListenerX. Your the first person in God knows how long I have seen spell "free rein" correctly.  I am still gasping with pleasure.  Sorry if that doesn't add to the conversation. Burlap bags (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I just want to say that your reply is absurdly aggressive. I'm sorry that ideas you don't agree with can drive you to such fits of rage, but I think you should find healthier channels for its expression.


 * You might want to update your Pinko Duckspeak tape to incorporate something cooked up after 1848; the age of such chatter about factories is really starting to show now.'' The power relationships in a factories are something obvious.  Your consternation at their use clearly belies your frustration at your own inability to use, for that case, the existence of a spectrum going from exploiters to exploited as "evidence" that neither class of person exists under capitalism.


 * Everyone who was considered a person under slavery had a right to their own bodies. Uh, right; tell that to the slaves who could be legally raped because their owners were deemed to own their bodies. Those people weren't considered people under slavery. To miss that point, given the sentence I provided, is kind of breath-taking


 * ...you would have a relatively accurate model of the power relationships under modern capitalism. Tell that to the large number of small-business owners, the rest of the self-employed, and of course that band of "useless" persons, the lumpenproletariat. Consider also that a prison with all the cell doors locked is quite different from a prison with all those doors welded open. The existence of freemen does not give me pause in declaring the existence of slavery.  Their absence is not a necessary.  Also, for your analogy to make any sense, the only doors that can be welded open are those on the inside of the prison.


 * Under capitalism those needs are met by exchange. You would perhaps have it not be by exchange? That generally involves somebody taking something for nothing. Not at all. It's not really surprising that "taking" was the first thing that came to your mind. It's a bit sad though that it was the ONLY thing to come to your mind.  Also, I don't necessarily reject markets as a means of distribution.  Markets and capitalism are not equivalent, however.  Exchange as a means of acquiring basic needs is merely one component of what makes capitalism exploitative.


 * ...and that claim is backed up by the implied violence of the state... The function of the State is to introduce the rule of law, which is not present when private property owners are given free rein to hire their own thugs. You imply a distinction where none exists.  The function of the state, under capitalism, is to protect the right of the controllers of capital to continue controlling capital.  The beauty of doing this with a state instead of thugs is that a state can command a lot more violence and you can trick people who gain no benefit from its existence into offsetting some of its costs and doing so willingly (and then you can throw a temper tantrum if anyone suggests that the state give ANYTHING back to its victims).


 * ...the "owner" (I use quotes because I find absurd the idea... It is, of course, an entirely absurd idea that a person should have any remuneration for the expense of building a factory. Remuneration is an odd word to choose there. Do profits stop when the amount paid for the factory has been met?  Regardless, your snarky comment completely buries your premise that it's simply a law of physics that there will be some individuals with the ability to pay for the construction of a factory while there are others with nothing.  If those who worked in the factory were the ones who constructed it (or paid for its construction) their "remuneration" would come in the form of having productive capital they could use to make a living.


 * ...has a more legitimate claim to "ownership" of it than the people who work there every day)... Pray tell, what would such workers be doing for a living if the factory owner had not built it? And here again you start from the premise that it cannot be the workers doing the building or the owning after the building is complete. When you start from a particular conception of society and the distribution of goods within in, it's not really surprising that alternatives outside of the self-reinforcing tendencies within that framework would seem absurd.  Obviously this begs the question of the means for achieving some alternative, but that's not a question you've actually asked and it's not particularly relevant to the question of mere ethical evaluation of the status quo.  If it's a question you're actually interested in discussing, we can do that too...provided you ask nicely.


 * Under liberal governments, this sentence has been commuted to merely a life of hardship... It would appear that you, for some reason or other, do not find it absolutely absurd that welfare recipients have more right to the State's money than people who had it taken out of their wages.  Well first of all, when you say "taken out of their wages" I don't really know what you mean.  If it's your belief that you would be getting paid your pre-tax income if there happened to not be income taxes, you are wrong.  If you'd like to know why you're wrong, you can ask politely. Second, it's not "for some reason or other."  The reason is pretty obvious.  If the government is going to prop up capitalism by force, I don't think it's absurd at all that the government look to the welfare of its victims.  Third, I think you've misunderstood my point.  Welfare is a way to keep capitalism going.  That's why it's championed by liberals (I know this is going to make your head explode, but stick with me for a minute). Economic arguments between conservatives and liberals fundamentally boil down an argument about whether it's better to make the horse move by beating it with a stick or by enticing it with an apple.  Liberals have no interest in getting rid of capitalism.  Their interest is in maintaining capitalism for as long as possible with band-aid fixes like welfare.  As a conservative, I realize that the idea that capitalism needs any maintenance is outright heresy, but nevertheless, the utterance of that heresy does not imply enmity toward capitalism at all (kind of like how you can recognize that your spouse isn't perfect without being required to hate them or wish you were with someone else).


 * The only functional ethical distinction... To make a translation of this bullshit, it would appear that by your own admission, while liberation from slavery involves defying the will of a slaver, liberation from capitalism involves defying reality. This is a non-argument. You could have saved us all the time of reading it by going with the much more concise "NUH UH!"Dsmelser (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I just want to say that your reply is absurdly aggressive... Ah, the dulcet tones of Moral Outrage/Ad Hominem Tape #3. Charming, but not terribly effective in a forum where one cannot silence the opposition.
 * ...but I think you should find healthier channels for its expression. Perhaps you would be more satisfied if I stopped squawking about how communism is a pile of bunk and started hacking up nice communist duckspeak, such as "KILL THE FACTORY OWNERS!"?
 * The power relationships in a factories [sic] are something obvious. Of course they are; this is how we know that those nasty reactionaries are suffering from false consciousness and need to be shut up in the gulag until they see the TruthTM about the matter.
 * Your consternation at their use clearly belies your frustration at your own inability to use... Methinks the old crystal ball is in need of some polishing there. I was referring to how the economy is not all factories and unskilled labor anymore.
 * Those people weren't considered people under slavery. Uh, yes, they were; read the Three Fifths Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
 * The existence of freemen does not give me pause in declaring the existence of slavery. If the lumpenproletariat are "freemen," it follows that any "slave" can become a "freeman" of his own accord by quitting his job and becoming a bum.
 * Not at all. It's not really surprising that "taking" was the first thing that came to your mind... Note that you have failed to provide any examples of other means of acquiring the stuff of life besides exchange and transfer without any exchange (i.e., taking something for nothing). I submit that this is because such means, by definition, do not exist.
 * The function of the state, under capitalism, is to protect... You might benefit from pulling your nose out of Marx's ravings and looking around for a change, given that Bakunin's critiques of that particular definition of the State proved quite prophetic.
 * Remuneration is an odd word to choose there. Do profits stop when the amount paid for the factory has been met? They might; it is not theoretically impossible within capitalism for a cooperative organization to hire someone to design a factory or other workplace. But if that became widespread practice, and if the Reds chanced to notice, they would probably carry on much as before, only substituting "architects" for "workers" in their former talking points.
 * ...your premise that it's simply a law of physics that there will be some individuals with the ability to pay for the construction of a factory... Of course that is not a "law of physics;" there are also the societies in which no one has any resources to build a factory, or even knows how. In such communist countries as managed to build any factories, the divide was between the nomenklatura and the unpersons, and even that was not terribly effective; Reds have to date shown themselves very adept at nicking other people's factories, but not so adept at building their own.
 * And here again you start from the premise that it cannot be the workers doing the building... Uh, no, that was you when you set up the scenario in which that question is set, wherein worker and builder are different people. But, again, there have been examples of cooperative businesses within the capitalist framework — dare I say, many more examples than in other frameworks.
 * Well first of all, when you say "taken out of their wages" I don't really know what you mean. Strangely enough, I meant exactly what I said. People who live on wages necessarily pay their taxes out of those wages, whether directly via an income tax or indirectly.
 * I know this is going to make your head explode... Indeed, it did make my head explode. Strange, but I never knew that liberals think how Reds say they think, rather than how they say they think; nor did I know that liberals, instead of merely giving a toss about the plight of the poor and making some (perhaps misguided) attempt to do something about it, are instead engaged in a massive conspiracy to throw bones to the victims.
 * This is a non-argument. Let us put the argument explicitly, then. Your remark about the "already unfortunate" would indicate that you are deviating from the usual squawking-point about how the Big Nasty Capitalists are responsible for said misfortune, which is a welcome breath of reality, but also sets up the handy objection that in such a situation the employers are in general only making things better for the workers than they would be if employment and wages were not being offered, while slavers are able to compel slaves to enter worse situations. 07:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "First, I just want to say that your reply is absurdly aggressive... Ah, the dulcet tones of Moral Outrage/Ad Hominem Tape #3. Charming, but not terribly effective in a forum where one cannot silence the opposition. "


 * Look dipshit, the point was merely that you don't need to engage in such wildly disproportionate responses. It makes you sound even fucking stupider than you already do by the content of your "arguments."  But that's fine.  If it's going to be that kind of party, I'm gonna put my dick in the mashed potatoes.  You are seriously fucking retarded.  That you could be such a virulent defender of capitalism while being, quite fucking obviously, totally ignorant of the main thrust of anti-capitalist thought going back literally over a hundred and fifty fucking years marks you quite plainly as an intellectually lazy sack of shit.  You and everyone like you are what's wrong with the world we live in.  In a very real sense, you are a cancer (except that most cancers at least have the virtue of only ruining a single life).  Nothing in what you've said, literally nothing, has any impact whatsoever on the ethical questions at play here.  Your silly, risible attempts to conflate the concept of communism with the worst aspects of authoritarian regimes which UTTERLY fail to pass any reasonable litmus test you might hope to derive from that concept would be amusing, if they (like you) weren't so fucking sad.  That you could be so fucking stupid as to invoke what is arguably the arch-example of a communist (Bakunin) as some sort of attack on communism (and thereby, inoke the thought of a staunch anti-capitalist to defend capitalism) is really fucking astounding.  Seriously man, have you ever EVER read any Bakunin?  At all?  Or did you just get one half of that one quote about "socialism without freedom..." and decide to run with it?  Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you?


 * I'd take the time to respond to your points individually, but frankly the quality of your previous responses has made it pretty clear that that's totally pointless. Unless and until you can put together an actual rational response to the points I made earlier, I'm just going to take my victory lap, you fucking retard.


 * Dsmelser (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ye gods! What was that you were saying about finding healthier channels to express rage at ideas you disagree with?
 * ...what is arguably the arch-example of a communist (Bakunin)... Bakunin was an anarchist who was greatly at odds with Marxism. I disagree with some things he said, obviously, but that did not stop him from making some good critiques of Marxism.
 * Or did you just get one half of that one quote about "socialism without freedom..." and decide to run with it? I am not familiar with that quote from Bakunin. As I recall, I was referring to a critique he made of the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Marx had a very idealistic view of the State as a machine of class war, which allowed him to believe that it would "wither away" when the economic system changed. Bakunin, on the other hand, recognized that the State is a real thing of brick, mortar, flesh and blood, and thus made some very accurate predictions of what would happen after a communist revolution, viz., that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be an actual dictatorship run by a new elite group.
 * Your silly, risible attempts to conflate the concept of communism with the worst aspects of authoritarian regimes... My "litmus test" is that they profess to be communist, whether they are run by Real Communists™ or not. A significant proportion of professed communists took a leaf out of your book and blamed all the ills of the world on a group of people constituting a "cancer" to be cut out of society; this cutting is better known as the slaughter and desolation that the Reds left in their wake. 03:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Anarchism and communism are concepts which are tied at the hip. This isn't a matter of the no-true-scotsman fallacy.  All forms of socialism (including communism) take as their base claim the notion that workers ought to be in control of the capital they use.  That is a necessary condition for any socialist economic system.  It isn't the case that things just simply weren't close enough along those lines.  Every example of authoritarian "communism" that you can provide explicitly violates this necessary condition, and your favorite examples do so under the weight of a MASSIVE history of internal left-wing uprisings against them (that means workers and farmers fighting the Soviets for the right to form actually communist communities).
 * 2. All the criticisms of Marxism in the world are totally irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, I happen to agree with them and with Bakunin on a great many things.  I guarantee you that I am more familiar with Bakunin than you are.  You basically couldn't have picked a worse name to invoke.  If you think for one second that the concept of anarchism is antithetical to the notion that capitalism is predicated on slavery-like power relationships, you're just revealing your ignorance.  If you hold that proposition as part of a larger framework which takes the notion for granted that one place where anarchism and marxism differ is on Marx's economic analysis (rather than on his political analysis of what is to be done in the face of the inherently unethical nature of capitalism), then your ignorance knows no bounds.  Your ability to thunder on in spite of this profound ignorance is simply breathtaking.  Believe me when I tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about.  Dsmelser (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In case you're still to thick to put 2 and 2 together, I thought I'd lend you a hand:


 * "'The first source of the degradation of labor, namely, the dogma of the political inequality of men, was destroyed by the Great Revolution [The French Revolution]. The degradation must therefore be attributed to a second source, which is nothing but the separation which still exists between manual and intellectual labor, which reproduces in a new form the ancient inequality and divides the world into two camps: the privileged minority, privileged not by law but by capital, and the majority of workers, no longer captives of the law but of hunger.'  --Bakunin"


 * "'Is it necessary to repeat here the irrefutable arguments of Socialism which no bourgeois economist has yet succeeded in disproving? What is property, what is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both. Note that I have left out of account altogether the following question: In what way did property and capital ever fall into the hands of their present owners? This is a question which, when envisaged from the points of view of history, logic, and justice, cannot be answered in any other way but one which would serve as an indictment against the present owners. I shall therefore confine myself here to the statement that property owners and capitalists, inasmuch as they live not by their own productive labor but by getting land rent, house rent, interest upon their capital, or by speculation on land, buildings, and capital, or by the commercial and industrial exploitation of the manual labor of the proletariat, all live at the expense of the proletariat. (Speculation and exploitation no doubt also constitute a sort of labor, but altogether non-productive labor.)'  --Bakunin"


 * "'But - the economists tell us - the property owners, the capitalists, the employers, are likewise forced to seek out and purchase the labor of the proletariat. Yes, it is true, they are forced to do it, but not in the same measure. Had there been equality between those who offer their labor and those who purchase it, between the necessity of selling one's labor and the necessity of buying it, the slavery and misery of the proletariat would not exist. But then there would be neither capitalists, nor property owners, nor the proletariat, nor rich, nor poor: there would only be workers. It is precisely because such equality does not exist that we have and are bound to have exploiters.'  --Bakunin"


 * "'If, as a consequence of the particular circumstances that constantly influence the market, the branch of industry in which he planned at first to employ his capital does not offer all the advantages that he had hoped, then he will shift his capital elsewhere; thus the bourgeois capitalist is not tied by nature to any specific industry, but tends to invest (as it is called by the economists - exploit is what we say) indifferently in all possible industries. Let's suppose, finally, that learning of some industrial incapacity or misfortune, he decides not to invest in any industry; well, he will buy stocks and annuities; and if the interest and dividends seem insufficient, then he will engage in some occupation, or shall we say, sell his labor for a time, but in conditions much more lucrative than he had offered to his own workers."


 * "The capitalist then comes to the market in the capacity, if not of an absolutely free agent, at least that of an infinitely freer agent than the worker. What happens in the market is a meeting between a drive for lucre and starvation, between master and slave . Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist, even before the market transaction has been concluded whereby the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer.'  --Bakunin"


 * I know that it's considerably less convenient for you, but the fact of the matter is communism is not reducible to Stalinism, nor is anarchism (with its attendant connotations of liberty) compatible with capitalism.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...
Who thinks Keynes ideas are "mostly discounted" today? He is still considered one of the basic theorists of modern economics, and his ideas are VERY well-accepted among most economists. For example, while Mankiw (probably the most prominent young economist working today) says there are issues with them, he always points to them as one of the main contending theorists. Krugman (who just won a Nobel Prize) is mostly a Keynesian as well. Researcher 22:51, 2 December 2008 (EST)
 * Yeah, I tried to balance out and snarkify the last overhaul of the article--but I think you of all people should be looking at this one and make with the fixing...PFoster 22:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)
 * Damnit Jim, I'm a political scientist, not an economist! I'll see what I can do...I've done edits to it in the past that got overturned by some ideologically motivated people, but I'll give it another go. Researcher 23:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)
 * Dammit Jim, yourself..I'm a historian and a freakin' pomo communie anarchist. Don't let me anywhere this article. PFoster 23:08, 2 December 2008 (EST)
 * Honestly, I'm interested in the perspectives of a communie anarchist, as long as the overall piece has some objectivity and an understanding of the current general academic consensus. And, despite being a card carrying capitalist stooge, it should be noted that there are PLENTY of problems with capitalism.  (I consider it much like the Winston Churchill quote--"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.)  My personal ideal is either the US regulatory system as it existed under Clinton and the Nordic systems.  (Yes, they're wildly different, but different systems for different cultures.  But never the Christian Democratic systems of Continental Europe.) Researcher 23:20, 2 December 2008 (EST)
 * Meh, the core of Keynesian economics (ISLM model) is extinct. New-keynesians base their work off of RBC models. "Mostly discounted" is indeed probably a little too strong, but Keynes's influence on the field is the same as, say, Thomas Malthus - everybody recognizes that he did great work and advanced us, it just happens that a lot of what he said was wrong. Longnameislonger (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Laissez-faire v. less-fair.
Dammit, I was proud of that joke. I'm French-Canadian, I know what "laissez-faire" really means. PFoster 23:24, 2 December 2008 (EST)
 * It struck me as overly snarky, but if you want to put it back in, go for it. Researcher 23:27, 2 December 2008 (EST)

ListenerX
Good job with the edits. Those help a lot. Researcher 00:21, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Another country heard from...
It's a very subjective article and it needs balance, and citations for claims it makes. Serious quality problems.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 72.250.198.18 / talk / contribs
 * It's a wiki: feel free to edit. 15:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh, who the hell wrote this?
Could we "rational" it up?

You could have criticized Neoliberalism or something; all this does is make RationalWiki look bad.
 * Uhhh, you want to make a specific point, or just talk in vague generalities?  (Also, for those playing along at home, I think that qualifies as a drink.)  ThunderkatzHo! 05:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'll give it half a shot. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)To the BON: See section above. Pippa (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention free-market socialism
Free market socialism exists, and it implies worker ownership of the means of production which still operate in a market economy, using the strength and growth of capitalism while ensuring the well-being of most of the people, who just happen to be proletarians. Such a system (market socialism) combined with government regulations to ensure that those who are unable to work are provided with the required needs, is human and efficient in the same time. This type of socialism is getting more and more popular in several intellectual circles while often gets dismissed as revisionist by many socialists who support central planning, which is currently inefficient due to a lack of computational technology.


 * My understanding of market socialism has always been Lange's computation of prices and quantities... i.e. the thing you said it was not in the last sentence. Worker ownership is legal and somewhat popular in market economies (do you live near a Publix, by any chance? employee owned!), but generally these firms do not do well. Theoretical explanations for this failure generally involve an unstable voting shareholder base which makes very-long-term planning perilous and the general lack of interest from workers - you can't sell your shares (not publicly traded) and dividend payments only come so often, so many workers would just prefer to get the cash in their checks.


 * Anyways, it's not seriously considered in any of the economic circles I know of.

"A truly free market, which is based on self-ownership..."
The article is slowly being rewritten by an apologist for libertarianism. "Self-ownership" my ass. That's as lame as hiring peasants to improve their lot in life. 04:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's part of a juxtaposition with "the doctrine that all people are the chattel property of God," and the moral background of capitalism is rooted in the concept of self-ownership. It makes the joke work and it's at least ostensibly factual, even if you disagree with the implications of capitalism. Longnameislonger (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (EC) That one was mine, Human, and it has been on the page for over three years. Fundamentalists' support for free trade and free enterprise goes right up in smoke just as soon as the trade or enterprise deals with a product they disapprove of. 04:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Max Weber's Protestant Ethic
I'm not really a fan of this tidbit. It's overly specific and detailed, not matching the rest of the article's light but informative style. I'm not sure how it could be incorporated into the rest of the article, as it just seems like a random and pointless fact out of nowhere. Also, "the phenomena Weber documents can be accounted for in Protestantism's promotion of literacy" refers to a poorly-defined "phenomena," as in the earlier sentence it was just stated that Weber had a theory.

Opinions on cutting it, or if you think it should stay opinions on how to work it in? Longnameislonger (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wage-slavery is slavery & illegal
“When Corporations Rule the world” explains how we were forced to need money: “One of the major challenges faced by colonial administrators was to force those who obtained their livelihoods from their own lands & common areas to give up their lands & labor to PLANTATION development; that is, to MAKE them dependent on a money economy so that their resources, labor, & consumption might yield profits to the colonizers…“Forced labor was piously justified as ‘developmentally beneficial to the enslaved’!.....“The black does not like work ….It is therefore necessary to use….slavery to improve his circumstances … (1901 NOTE 1901!!)!!)

“In many colonized countries, the imposition of taxes payable only in cash was used to FORCE people into the cash economy…. In Vietnam, the French imposed taxes on salt, opium, & alcohol. The British in Sudan taxed crops, animals, houses, & households. In their West African colonies, the French punished tax evasion by holding wives & children hostage, whipping men, burning huts, & leaving people tied up without food for several day. Development was a hard sell in those days…”

“Korten came to believe that the deepening crisis of deepening change, growing inequality, environmental devastation, and social disintegration he was observing in Asia was also being experienced in nearly every country in the world –including the United States – and other “developed” countries. Furthermore he came to the conclusion that the United States was actively promoting –both at home and abroad – the very policies that were deepening the global crisis. For the world to survive, the United States must change.” Wikipedia about Korten Now we can see that we should have built only 100-story live/work/play tower cities to save the Earth connected to trains (T&T), but USA was blinded by all the empty “free”land in 1900.

No one is free until every person on earth owns all things. Read online Third World Traveler to see how USA causes world poverty with capitalism/slavery. Klop789 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Utopia Manifest
So there is a more perfect way, made simple by the Internet & perfect communication: http://hem.passagen.se/rj77/1-program.htm Klop789 (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Biggest Rogue State is USA
USA is the biggest Rogue State. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Rogue_State_US/Biggest_Rogue.html Klop789 (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Rogue State par excellence is USA
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Rogue_State_US/RogueState_ParExcellence.html Klop789 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Brief history of U.S. interventions
The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html Klop789 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * making the world safe for American corporations
 * preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an ALTERNATIVE TO THE CAPITALIST MODEL

Thank God for natural disasters
Capitalists say thank God for natural disasters & car crashes & sickness because it creates lots of jobs rebuilding wooden houses & buildings, again & again! Forget how many people are left homeless, killed (even crimes) etc etc. & thank God for wars that create so many jobs. Klop789 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which capitalists say that?--Barryjon (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. no quotes. It's never said in the same breath, but that's the way it works. Klop789 (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Teaching evil
You can't teach people to be evil [capitalists] & then expect them to be good & not commit crimes, with low or no wage/income. Unequal wealth is evil & obviously the cause of the world's problems. Klop789 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Devilish!
KJV says in James 3:13-16 that anything that causes confusion, bitter envy & strife is devilish, so that's why we're living in HELL with wage slavery, insurance slavery, debt slavery. rent slavery, taxation slavery, needing killer cars is slavery, living in fear of getting identity stolen is insane slavery, commutes are slavery (when there's a crash thousands can't get to where they need, like picking up kids from daycare/school slavery, etc! Entrepreneurialism is worse slavery than working for a wage=failure is built into the system: Ferdinand Lundberg "The Rich & Super-Rich"). This system is evil slavery & is killing us all because it destroys the EARTH!! Klop789 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's confusing!--Barryjon (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Private property
Private property should be illegal; eliminate fences so wildlife can live & won't have to cross roads/freeways to find food, water, etc. I see so many dead deer, even fawns. Animals are like children who can't cross roads safely. They killed the last CA grizzly bear in 1922! So the people could safely keep building houses in forests until forests are filled with housing subdivisions. Farmers can't guard fields & livestock 24/7 so no one steals from them. Telling people to get car oil changed every 3,00 miles instead of the needed only 10,000 miles to reap profits for the few, & destroy the earth with pollutions (air, water, noise, light, soil, trash, & whatever else). Capitalist wage slavery stopped progress.....by causing poverty so billions weren't able to live to be doctors & scientists, the most important things every person should be taught. In wars people with very little to no experience in medical have to become doctors, so why not everyone should be a Dr asap, with varying degrees & experience learned OTJ. Eliminate paper 95% (it's toxic) via computers for every person. Only make things to last forever or be recycled.....Build Tower cities & Trains. I read & can't find now that wage slavery is cheaper than "real slavery" cuz only in real slavery did slave owners have to provide health care, food, shelter, clothing. Upton Sinclair wrote about how schools/colleges teach slavery! By charging too much (it should be free). People who once were "rich" (had jobs) abandon pets cuz they can't afford pet food/medical etc. Giving all people a Guaranteed Income via all people own all things will make everything free so no one starves. People by the thousands lose everything in natural disasters (Katrina, Sandy, Haiyan etc) need to be fed 3 meals a day free for years until they can start growing their own food. Not having it makes life impossible. Capitalism is failure & even economists are realizing that. Monarchies are slavery & should be illegal. It's funny to read about how former "monarchs" live after losing it. Unequal wealth is wrong obviously & causes all crime & problems. Without capitalism every problem will have a solution. The Menendez brothers killed their parents to get their money. Wage slavery makes families hate each other, so it surely causes hate between strangers. That's all. 20:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

In Defence of Marxism
http://www.marxist.com/the-scourge-of-payday-lenders.htm http://www.marxist.com/canada-perspectives-2014.htm Klop789 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this still "rational?"
Beginning an article with a quote which is clearly biased (And is also a few decades old and can hardly be accepted without criticism in today's world) has nothing to do with a rational analysis of the concept. Then we are told that "most people agree" that capitalism is the most productive economic system ever. Well they might be right if they ignore things like the fact that the capitalist nations/enterprises of today (And no, China i not a communist country) are almost solely responsible for global warming, general environmental destruction, depletion of resources, and, to a lesser degree, for war. I would say that these alleged "most people" are quite ignorant of the facts.Also how do you know if "most people" actually agree on this? Have you conducted a world wide opinion poll or something? So why place their opinion (or any opinion) at the top of the article?
 * RW is a fairly opinionated wiki -we have a declared "Snarky point of view". If you poke around the site, you'll find a lot of criticism of capitalism -Libertarians are made to look like sociopaths. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, i understand that. But how is this a justification for a clearly biased (i.e. not "rational") article? Also i guess that the snarkiness should be directed towards irrational beliefs, not support them.

Corp's are slave plantations
CorpWatch: http://www.corpwatch.org/index.php Klop789 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It surprises most people to learn that the wage is also slavery, & I think they really didn't think it was. They also didn't think mercantilism or colonialism or monarchism, etc is slavery. A few people knew, but if confronting anyone with that info they were told it was not slavery, & the majority were never told, & most were never aware it was slavery. I think it was ignorance of the rich owners who wrote the history & didn't think their systems were slavery. Klop789 (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

McDonald's CEO's advice
How to live on $25,000 a year! >>http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mcdonalds-ceo-try-living-on-mcbudget-of-25000-2013-07-25?siteid=yhoof2 Klop789 (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Tower cities & Trains (T&T)
This will convince every capitalist to end wage slavery: redistribute wealth worldwide, then delete it (no money). Then eliminate all the jobs. Tell people to work part-time (maybe 10-20 hrs a week) building only 50-story Tower cities (making it possible to build higher later on) connected to mag-lev Trains (T&T) worldwide. T&T is what we should have built starting at some point in the past, because it would have, & will, eliminate all companies & jobs. Not tall skinny towers like WTC. Massive bases, very massive. Every Tower with all things. Klop789 (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And then instead of regular police, we can have them dress up in awesome helmets and giant shoulder pads and run around shouting, "I AM THE LAW!"
 * More seriously, you might consider reading an economics 101 textbook or a few Wikipedia articles and then discussing the content of the article. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

We won't need any law enforcement or military because there won't be any crime, obviously. Klop789 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * How could there be any crime if there's equal wealth?? However, I will admit that it might take up to 10 generations before all people are "perfect" (so to speak) because poverty/oppression messes up people physically & mentally for many generations. How could there be crime without poverty??? No one will rob a bank, house, business, etc if money is eliminated & if everything is free! Banks won't exist. Klop789 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There has always been a very severe housing shortage crisis, so the only solution is to quickly start building hundreds of Tower cities. Cars kill about 130-150 people every day, & that affects their living family & friends in many ways, including leaving many children orphans, who then need foster homes, & then they'll eventually end up with no financial help from parents & so many end up homeless, & American capitalists don't want to help the homeless because they think the homeless are just too "lazy" to get a job, even though there never have been or will be enough JOBS, think of automation eliminating every job. Someday every person can have a "robotic doctor/advice nurse" who will only need actual human doctors after they've been checked out, at home, by their robot doctor that says they need someone. Klop789 (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Tower cities have to be 12 sided, for strength, but I'm not sure if that means roundish or criss-cross style, so if anyone like engineer, architect, whatever, knows which would be strongest please let me know. Klop789 (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie
Woody Guthrie's great song "Don't Fence Me In" was anti-private property because he was anti-capitalist. Klop789 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC) 04:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

INSURANCE & MEDICAL SYSTEM
Oh man, how I despise the USA's terrible medical system! Insurance is putting a bandaid on cancer--it even kills rich people & people who have insurance! Eliminate it, & the wage, USA!! Klop789 (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

YAY! THE END OF CAPITALISM!!!
http://monthlyreview.org/2005/03/01/the-end-of-rational-capitalism USA are losers! At last we'll start towards a perfect world & USA can't stop it any longer, they slowed it down in the last century but they'll never be able to stop it from coming, because even poor people can get on the Internet, they don't have to be rich to buy a TV station or corporation, just get on the Internet! No more sorrow, no more starving, no more death! Stupid USA! https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Arxf9aTVJX9ATb9_hhB_TiqbvZx4?fr=yfp-t-901-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=words%20to%20god%20bless%20america Klop789 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hate cars
Never trust any driver whether you're walking, driving or riding, they're horrible people who want cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles etc. Klop789 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I ran over a family of bunnies the other day. TeenageWasteland (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Revelation
The last Bible book is all about the horrible system called Capitalism, which describes how it is destroying the earth, and people, building cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, houses & small buildings through slavery for wages, & how unjust & evil it is. Ferdinand Lundberg explains how a few super-rich people rule over the world in "The Rich and the Super-Rich" & one thing is about the poor pay all the taxes while the rich pay no taxes, including corporations (idols), but everything USA worships & thinks is right is evil idolatry! It's funny too, with sarcasm & punctuation marks. "When Corporations Rule the World" & excerpts online at Third World Traveler, which will give us some Hope by simply exposing some capitalist lies. Klop789 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How can a book written centuries before the development of capitalism be about capitalism? TeenageWasteland (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Childcare desperation
I just heard the story about "law enforcement" somewhere arresting a woman for constantly starting up unlicensed childcare in her home, they arrest her but she starts it up again, & again etc, with 15 or 13 kids. They canNOT see that there is a great desperate NEED for parents to find anyone to watch their children, often strangers, so they can WORK! They're forced to work too much, or have no income, to pay bills, to buy food, shelter, clothing! Capitalists are soooo stupid!! Can I say that? I should cuz no one will read this! :) Can't Americans use their brains yet & see the "history if capitalism" is actually slavery, but it was not called slavery??  Just read about McCarthyism to see how USA scared the world INTO being capitalist slaves!  USA is soooo stupid! Can I say that too?? I hate the Media for misguiding Americans, so eliminate the media & schools & colleges, & cars, truck & buses, & houses & every small building, & libraries (we have computers--stop building one for every president & Sam Dick & Harry!)!! Eliminate every insurance company & zoos & Banks & everything in USA.....so we'll have to end wage-slavery (NO JOBS/WORK, see?) & end world poverty! Wait, going back to childcare subject above, most families are desperate for childcare & the only solution is to end the stupid wage system, to save lives of children (& animals, if it will reach your hard hearts) How many very young children have to be left alone while parents work, tying them in their beds or worse. If anyone loves their children how can you not have compassion for all innocent children? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=631952636842170 How many oppressed parents beat their children because of stress, & have no one to help them, or stop them from hurting, even killing their own child, in USA & worldwide. Do not be a stupid capitalist! Someday capitalists will be ridiculed & hated for their beliefs in enslaving all people. Having children is a form of slavery, as is marriage, debt/loans, watching TV, cooking,etc. Most parents don't want to raise their own kids because it's boring, & difficult. Technology is causing more child neglect, abuse, etc.  Klop789 (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

WORK BUT NO HOUSING
USA has always tried to "create jobs" (harmful ones) but never build enough places for people to live! How is it legal for rich people to own rental property to enrich the rich, but they won't clean up rentals (paint, cockroaches, rats, mold, sleeping bugs, etc), Klop789 (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to DO but work
In Capitalism there is nothing to do but work. Every house is a small slave plantation. You're screwed if you hate watching TV, movies, shopping, reading constantly, which isn't living at all, cooking, traveling, etc. Klop789 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ferdinand Lundberg (The Rich & Super-Rich) says corporations & the richest people don't pay taxes, only the non-propertied do. People worry that not working might make people lazy, but not the rich heirs who do no work. Rich men expect their sons to work but not their wives or daughters. Klop789 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No one's happy
At least we can feel good knowing that not even the rich people are happy when there is unequal wealth! Mansions don't make anyone happy, it makes them more lonely, & cause poverty eventually drying up all their money with upkeep, And who can't see all their servants are modern day slaves... In Capitalism almost every, if not every, person will die alone & lonely, after a lifetime of loneliness; families never live close to each other, usually on opposite sides of the nation, thanks to colleges, cars, wage jobs, houses, everything, because of the JOB. Most people don't know they're not happy, some do but don't know the cause! Klop789 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am very happy. TeenageWasteland (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

SO KARL MARX WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!
"The 1850s and 1860s also mark the line between what some scholars see as idealistic, Hegelian young Marx from the more scientifically minded mature Marx writings of the later period.[148][149][150][151] This distinction is usually associated with the structural Marxism school,[151] and not all scholars agree that it exists.[150][152] The years of revolution from 1848 to 1849 had been a grand experience for both Marx and Engels. They both became sure that their economic view of the course of history was the only valid way that historic events like the revolutionary upsurge of 1848 could be adequately explained. For some time after 1848, Marx and Engels wondered if the entire revolutionary upsurge had completely played out. When time had passed, they began to think that a new revolutionary would not occur until there was another downturn in the national economy. It became a point of contention between Marx and certain other revolutionaries that an economic recession would be necessary to create a new revolutionary situation in society. Marx would accuse these other revolutionaries as "adventurists" because of their belief that a revolutionary situation could be created out of thin air by the sheer "will power" of the revolutionaries without regard to the economic realities of the current situation.

"The downturn in the United States economy in 1852 set Marx and Engels to wonder if a revolutionary upsurge would soon occur. However, the United States' economy was TOO NEW to play host to a classical revolution. THE WESTERN FRONTIER IN AMERICA ALWAYS PROVIDED A RELIEF VALVE FOR THE PENT-UP FORCES THAT MIGHT IN OTHER COUNTRIES CAUSE AN ECONOMIC RECESSION. Any economic crisis which began in the United States would not lead to revolution unless one of the older economies of Europe "caught the contagion" from the United States. In other words, economies of the world were still seen as individual national systems which were contiguous with the national borders of each country. The Panic of 1857 broke the mould of all prior thinking on the world economy. Beginning in the United States the Panic spread across the globe.[153] Indeed, the Panic of 1857 was the first truly global economic crisis."

Right - THE WESTERN FRONTIER IN AMERICA ALWAYS PROVIDED A RELIEF VALVE FOR THE PENT-UP FORCES THAT MIGHT IN OTHER COUNTRIES CAUSE AN ECONOMIC RECESSION." Lots of EMPTY FREE LAND provided a relief valve. He was so right. Noam Chomsky also mentions that. Klop789 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

-- IDOLATRY --

Insurance is idolatry, as are vehicles & wage slavery. "Creating JOBS" is the national policy, slavery! USA is imperialist & evil. Everything USA did/does was/is wrong: like need stupid receipt for returns & discounts on "next visit" the tiny piece of paper must be presented to get a discount. USA wants public education because it's needed for free childcare so both parents can work, & they send sick kids to school so parents can work & not get fired! USA says "don't say fired. say he got laid off." He's still fired with no income. Stupid capitalist slaves think most people don't WANT health care, for their kids, because they can't afford insurance! To avoid USA's coming Water Wars eliminate lawns & never wash cars! Farmers are such slaves, why would anyone want to be a farmer? Trained sports fanatics have nothing in common to talk about with people who hate sports--division. USA causes all world's crimes & wars & terrorism by enslaving the world. Study child slavery in USA still today to see it's child slavery, & study USA's struggling slaves who only wanted unions, not freedom! Cars killed how many millions in USA & worldwide! We can eliminate death from everything except old age by ending wage-slavery & eliminating all vehicles & small buildings, & build Tower cities. Klop789 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

-- POVERTY STOPS PROGRESS --

The poverty caused worldwide by capitalism (wage-slavery/slavery) stops, & reverses, progress. Children need not only food to live but to develop their brains to be intelligent & normal, & most Americans are poor (debt is poverty & slavery. http://www9.buyerpricer.com/Video.aspx?videoid=cfCffnjfo3w&slk=brain+child+development&cid=3996725431&kwid=20559690955&uq=child+development+brains&nid=2&iscid=20000000&term=brain+child+development&vx=0

Add
Add a section on how Republicans are against Capitalism in their support for American protectionism?
 * that might be good but I think it would be better on the republican page rather than the capitalism page unless its a general trend of conservative groups around the world (also you should put four tildes (~) to sign your post so they'll know when it was messaged and who did it)Vorarchivist (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Good criticism
We quoted Strasser as Hitler. 17:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

"What exactly s capitalism?"
Am I the only one who takes issue with the contents under this subheading. This sections reads, to me, as less a definition of capitalism than a definition of free market capitalism, which is something entirely different. Free market capitalism, like socialism, are all ideologies. (Due to the abstractness of "free market", there is doubt that it even exists). Capitalism, proper, is an economic system that evolved from human interaction. It's a way of doing things, and free market capitalism, socialism etc are people's ideas of how we capitalism should operate. Therefore, I will re-write this section. Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)