|
U-Know! Forum » the 'it' in bullshit |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
morfe 2992 posts |
Sep 16, 2003, 22:16
|
||
|
If capitalism is (in it's objectivism) fundamentally opposed to 'morals', and the 'use of force', why oh why does 21stC capitalism take the side of the 'moralist ' warmongers who reduce the whole world to 'good vs evil'??? Bombing a country as a 'lesson' to 'countries' who harbour terrorists is what kind of lesson?? I don't feel like being bombed because my government harbour nuclear, chemical and biological weapons thankyou. I'm not sure my children's children's children would thank you for bombing me either. Reading today an article from Capitalism.com, stating that unfettered nuclear destruction of a country is the only way to stop terrorism. Is capitalism inherently totalitarian? Or is that a nonsense? How can capitalists claim objectivism and then argue about how capitalism is defined? Bin Laden's mob destroyed two buildings so the 'free' world destroy a country. Where is the absence of force here??? Does destroying 'suspicious' countries enable a Constitutional Republic to flourish?? It's rather 'moral' to claim that you are the best, and therefore at any (or anybody's) cost will it be established. The 'it'. I think is bullshit. Capitalism sayss that the bombing of Afghanistan was the Talebans' fault. They neglect to say that the bombing of Afghanistan is the fault of everyone involved. What good is bombing a whole country with nuclear warhead's just to say that 'it was their fault'. This makes the innocents both unwitting martyrs AND examples. Something that seems to be in direct contravention to the Capitalist idyll of individual rights. Capitalists define capitalism as nothing "more or less than" a system of government which implements: "Private property, free markets, and rule of law institute and protect individual rights." So why are they saying they are the first and last stand against EVIL when all the greatest mass 'evils' in this world have been perpetrated by Imperialists, Nationalists, and Empire builders, all of which are things supported by capitalism.????? And why the fuck does capitalism.org AND capitalism.com promote romanticism as THE art for the New World! Dick-tat!!! This isn't 'law of the jungle', any 1st year ecology student could point out the very fine parameters that are traced out for each species to enable biodiversity. This is a self-made game of scrabble, and will be the law of the desert.
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Sep 16, 2003, 22:30
|
||
That's what I hate about "capitalism". It's baffling hypocrisy. They talk about freedom and support tyranny. Or state imposed morality.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Sep 16, 2003, 22:38
|
||
|
Romanticism ? 0.o I'll get me wig out
|
|||
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 16, 2003, 23:25
|
||
|
ARRGGGHHH!!!! You're just babbling about labels without examining any of the underlying assumptions. For starters "capitalism" is NOT a form of government at all . . . it's part of an economic typology invented by Karl Marx. It specifically describes the relationship between the state and the economy from a "class" perspective. What is it *specifically* that bothers you anyway? "Money"? That's been around for millenia, long before so-called "capitalism." "War mongering?" Again, predates "capitalism" by millenia. "America?" Not synonymous with capitalism in the first place. You're probably mostly talking about the current president and his policies. "Unfairness?" Who ever said life was fair? Particularly, was it any more "fair" in the age of lords and peasants? If you say "feudalism and capitalism are the same thing", then back of the class for you. Marx defined "capitalism" (a word he invented) in terms of precisely how it wasn't "feudalism."
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Sep 17, 2003, 13:19
|
||
|
You are completely right in your pedantry. well done you. How-bleedin-ever the term 'capitalism' now means something else, especially to a large group of people who describe themselves as capitalists. Language is like that, it evolves, no amount of bitching about it is going to stop it. Not only that, but scoring linguistic points is extremely childish. We all know what morfe means, and so do you or you wouldnt go off like a car alarm, so STFU with the origin of the word argument. The orgin is irrelevant, what it means now is important, go read 'language is a virus' by William Burroughs. I believe morfe was also actually underlining some elements of yr argument, as in 'if capitalism means A then why do they do B'. Whereas you go 'wah! wah! its not capitalism, its not what Marx defined', the rest of the world has learned to expand the meaning of capitalism to encompass all free market western democracies. Whereas the US is actually acting like any good ole imperialist nation on an empire building cycle, we'll just call it evil bad capitalist. Is that okay with you ? Back to the other point, money, its origin. Aristotle was around when that was happening, and he said, something to the effect of, 'The trouble with money is people will see the purpose of it is to hoard it without end'
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Sep 17, 2003, 13:39
|
||
Because markets have to grow. Stagnant markets die.
|
|||
|
duckbreath 254 posts |
Sep 17, 2003, 14:52
|
||
|
"If capitalism is (in it's objectivism) fundamentally opposed to 'morals', and the 'use of force', why oh why does 21stC capitalism take the side of the 'moralist ' warmongers who reduce the whole world to 'good vs evil'??? " Iraq wasn't bombed for moral reasons it was bombed for economic reasons "Reading today an article from Capitalism.com, stating that unfettered nuclear destruction of a country is the only way to stop terrorism. Is capitalism inherently totalitarian?" Capitalism moves to destroy anything that threatens it. Islam threatens it since it binds citizens to uncompromisable divine commands. You don't believe the 'good vs evil' stuff do you? It's a coating innit. You can't just talk about 'Capitalism' when you talk about governments as if that's all that individual governments are. Capitalism is just a way they achieve one of the aims of the social contract which is individual freedom. There are various other 'moral' aims that states follow that say nothing one way or another about the movement of Capital. ie it is perfecty plausible that America could interfere in another state's affairs if it was going to infringe the rights of its own citizens. An anti-terrorist programme may be justified under these terms. Sometimes America does act for reasons apart from commercial pursuits ie the Balkans and Northern Ireland - where it's actions can't be described as capitalistic.
|
|||
|
duckbreath 254 posts |
Sep 17, 2003, 15:14
|
||
|
but don't you think that america and britain are better described as "democracies" - where any capitalistic expanisonist activity is justified as the political will of the inhabitants within a framework of international law. BTW I mean "in theory" here because its obvious there is no such thing as international law that can't be gotten around. This is the problem. America getting round international law the way it did in Iraq shows the same level of breach and same lack of respect for international agreement as any terrorist. But it's not 'capitalism' that's the problem in my opinion.
|
|||
cancer boy 977 posts |
Sep 17, 2003, 15:52
|
||
|
>all the greatest mass 'evils' in this world have been >perpetrated by Imperialists, Nationalists, and Empire >builders Which groups do Stalin and Pol Pot come into? Seems a shame that you've just moved to the US if you've got a cob on with capitalism (unless you're the type of person who sticks his winkie into wasps' nests and then complains when it gets stung).
|
|||
|
gorseddphungus 185 posts |
Sep 17, 2003, 16:39
|
||
|
Stalin, though he wouldn't have admitted it, was all three - imperialist (controlled huge chunks of Europe), nationalist (the Mighty Soviets) and empire builder (USSR). Extremes but it's only in the different name, that's all. China is the same. Think about Tibet, inner Mongolia, etc Communist regimes are as inherently nationalistic as the US. I don't see any difference except in their economic system. XXX GP
|
| Pages: 13 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
