Those empty homes you can blame on our government-created housing bubble, which only occured because government forced banks to lend loans to people to buy houses they could not afford, and it promised to soak up all the bad loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The end result is plenty of homeless people and peopleless homes.
Do you understand that of those 18 million people around the world who die from poverty-related causes, very few of them actually live in capitalist countries? For instance, I'd like you to try to find out how many of those dying poor people live in North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and other countries that have extreme disdain for capitalism.
Actually, most of the countries with the highest rates of starvation have capitalist economies. Of the countries with the highest rates of starvation, all 10 are capitalist. Most are in sub-saharan Africa. North Korea is missing from the lists - likely because the statistics are censored. North Korea, however, isn't communist in the sense of ordinary people having democratic control over the distribution of resources and over their day to day work. North Korea can be seen as an extreme form of capitalism - the entire country run as one large corporation, with no democratic control from below.
See, now you're just making things up, and that's not okay. Very few Sub-Saharan Africa nations have much capitalism at all: [link]
For instance, let's take a closer look at the poverty-ridden Republic of Congo: [link] "Despite some progress, the regulatory environment still imposes significant burdens on entrepreneurs. Launching a company takes more than 100 days. With development of a modern labor market lagging, the informal sector is the source of most employment. The prices of goods and services are affected by state ownership and subsidization of the public sector."
Or Zimbabwe: [link] "When it became independent in 1965, Zimbabwe enjoyed a diversified economy, a well-developed infrastructure, and an advanced financial sector. It is now one of Africa’s poorest countries. Robert Mugabe became prime minister in 1980 and president in 1987." "The authoritarian executive branch strongly influences the judiciary and openly challenges court outcomes. Expropriation is common. The government’s land reform program, characterized by chaos and violence, has badly damaged the commercial farming sector, turning Zimbabwe into a net importer of food products. Corruption, encouraged by government officials at all levels, remains pervasive." "The overall regulatory environment is opaque. Starting a business takes nine procedures and 90 days in comparison to the world averages of seven procedures and 30 days. Completing licensing requirements costs over 40 times the level of average annual income. The formal labor market is not functioning, and the informal sector continues to be the source of employment. Monetary stability has been fragile in light of the previous hyperinflation."
Can you give me an example of a capitalist country where the economy was not created through the force and violence of the state? The examples you give are capitalist countries if the United States is a capitalist country. The capitalist class in the United States was enriched through the murderous expropriation of the North American continent, the murderous expropriation of land and resources from Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere, the enslavement of African and Native American people, the state repression of the migrant working classes, the expropriation of the labor power of women to whom no wages are paid despite their crucial role in social reproduction... Land ownership and property distribution around the world are created primarily through murderous state power used in the interests of the capitalist class. Capitalism is characterized primarily by private ownership of the means of production rather than common ownership - the examples you give are capitalist countries despite the existence of regulation and occasional state violence used against, rather than for, property owners.
Your statistics, if they are worth anything, demonstrate that private property rights are even more destructive when they are consolidated into the hands of authoritarian states. I don't believe in state property rights any more than the property rights of private small-time tyrants. Further, capitalist private property rights are hypocritical, valuing only rights that are traded for money and legitimated by a state. Most of the property capitalists extract wealth through is stolen property. Environmental and social costs are externalized - I am forced to pay taxes to clean the water that is polluted by corporations. I am forced to pay taxes to build and maintain the prisons and police forces that exist mostly to protect the property rights of the wealthy. Privilege and property are handed out on the basis of birth, skin color, gender, sexuality - who I was born to determines the outcomes of my life far more than my own efforts. If you believe otherwise you are a religious fanatic, not a critical thinker. No - this is not an ethical system. It is high time for a new property rights - the right of all to the means to live a happy life. The right of all to be free to do as they will, and have access to the wealth of the world, provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
Your statistics pit countries where the property rights of individuals are protected against countries where only the property rights of the state-corporation is protected. Naturally, in a capitalist context, "not protecting property rights" means ultra-capitalism: theft and corruption, performed through direct force rather than through legal force and the threat of deprivation. Your statistics are self-serving and meaningless to anyone but your ideologues. No where do you demonstrate what the implication is for societies with legally protected communal property rights and participatory political systems. I'm not interested in the statistical masturbation of right-wing think tanks. I'm interested in a just, free, and truly democratic society.
lol @ #democratize the economy, dumb people get to vote for the leader of the free world and now you want dumb people who watch dancing with the stars and could care less about this stuff to vote on the economy.
People aren't dumb, but many people are apathetic (due to their lack of power and relevance), don't have access to educational institutions, and spend so much time working that they have little time or energy for self-education. Giving working people the democratic right to their workplaces could change a lot of that. Given the power, people do consistently elect to provide themselves with more time, power and education. Don't be classist and elitist, you're just some dumb kid on deviantart, after all, no better than me or someone who watches pop television and works a decent job.
Do you really think you know better than the baker how he should bake? Do you think you know better than the inventor how he should invent? Do you really think you know better than the CEO of Boeing how Boeing should be run?
Do you understand that in a capitalist system, you could set up a bakery that operates by those exact rules? There's nothing stopping you. So why don't you try that instead of trying to force everyone else to change?
Yes, I do understand this. I am a co-owner of a worker-owned cooperative business. Worker-owned businesses are becoming more common, and it's a great direction to go. However, worker-owned businesses will not be able to undo the historical injustice that created our current distribution of power and wealth - and working people should not have to buy the economy away from the capitalists. We need the apartments we made, the tools we made, the land we worked, to return to common ownership. Capitalists stole it all, backed up by the state and its hypocritical "property rights". we can steal it back.
I rent the apartment I live in, from someone who derives their income, through rent, from my labor. Capitalist property laws allow for property owners to create wealth by simply owning wealth - my labor power is stolen through rent by someone who does not work.
Capitalism doens't work when it's not even being applied. The type of economy in use today in the majority of the world is a mixed-economy, a mixture of freedom and controls, with the latter rapidly outpacing the former.
Free market is one thing, capitalism is just another. Free markets could have its virtues. Some communitarian activities too. Anarchy would be (must definitely) a free (mixed) economy of market and non-market activities. But capitalism is an economical system rigged in favor of the capitalist using force. That is what it means for most of us (anarchist, socialists, anti-capitalist, etc.). [link] is a good source for dissambiguation between capitalism and (really really) free(d) markets.
Yeah I just went to a talk by the incredible Deric Shannon on anarchist economics and heard about some of these anti-capitalist, free-market ideas. Interesting stuff but totally different from the discourse on free markets in the vast majority of U.S. political dialogue.
Never heard (nor read) about Deric Shannon. But yeah, far left free(d) market does not sound like mainstream "free market" jargon. Even though some basic concepts are the same, mutualist and (anarcho-individualist) economics are pretty radical and socialist in nature.
WrathFan99Featured By OwnerFeb 19, 2013Student General Artist
No , we know full well what it is : Fascism . Free markets are fine , Free Market Capitalism is a naively idealistic concept because a competition-based system guarantees freedom only for the " haves " and never " the have-nots " . I mean , there are extreme Libertarians who say it would be better to let the homeless die than receive government aid ( Or as they so simple-mindedly put it " Government controls " ) . I`m not a big fan of bourgeois government myself but anyone who says that people should die rather than receive necessary government aid ( Which is necessitated by the bourgeois policies of Capitalism and Imperialism ) are nothing less than sociopaths , period .