capitalism: why so anti?
 

i can understand being anti-greed and being against all the bull**** that major corparations pull off, but why do propaghandi and related bands think they're clever by being anti-capitalist? if independent record labels aren't capitalist i don't know what is. and i hate the 9-to-5 black suit lifestyle as much as any punk new to the scene, but independent enterprise, i always thought, was capitalism. shall we discuss?

To be honest, I don't know. Capitalism doesn't seem all that bad, in fact, in a way it creates a fair yet competitive market place. With proper advertisement and marketing punk could be just as mainstream as pop due to capitalism. You'd think they'd be grateful for having an equal opportunity.

Because its an acceptable political stance in the punk world.

It really has nothing to do with capitalism itself. It's the system in place and just like any other it doesn't work as ideally as on paper. There is no right way.

Capitalism in theory is not bad. Humans are though. Greed ruins an alright system in capitalism just like they ****ed up communism.

Like a couple people have said, I don't think punk is against the concept of capitalism as much as they are against the way it has been employed by multinational corporations as a "stab anyone in the back, destroy thousands of lives, as long as you can get rich" practice.

Its funny how so many theories (capitalism, communism, anarchism, etc) look great on paper, but can never be applied right by humans.

all forms of government are flawed
all systems will fail
due to corruption and greed.
Let it be Communism, where the leaders became to power hungry
and led the nations into the ground.
Capitalism fails due to being money orientated, and only a few people out of the population have that much money, to succeed in the political feild you can not be a common man.

But bands being anti capitalism
are in fact usually over done or redundant upon themselves, they'd have to produce and distribute their albums for free, to eb totally anti capitalism.

Because they unquestioningly conform to a political, social and philosophical mindset that started with the hippie/peacenik scene in the 1960s and has reared its head in practically every countercultural movemnt since then with the exception of hip hop which in general celebrates business acumen and making money.

I'm not sure if its that all forms of government are flawed as much as its that all humans are flawed.

Well if humans are flawed and the system depends on the trust that humans will act in an intended way then the system is flawed.

I think some punk bands are anti-capitalist just because they like to rebel against things. They just like being against the way things are where they live. If they lived in Sweden, they'd rebel against democratic socialism just because they'd seem more "badass" that way.

That's a very good point. However, because human nature is flawed there can never be a system that isn't flawed. I personally don't even think there can be one that works well enough to be acceptable.

Wow, thats probably the punkest thing I've ever said, but thats not why I said it.

Independent enterprise is indeed Capitalism, however, I'm sure most "punks" are rebelling against the idea of Capitalism being exploited by individuals getting lucky and building a wealth so great as to lessen the lives of others around them.

As Crowquill said, a lot of "punks" probably have anti-Capitalist mission statements because they get sucked into the average ideas of all punk bands, which is mostly hating the system.

Typically, the system is Capitalism.

No practice of government is flawed.
In practice, humans are flawed, and in turn, make the otherwise "good on paper" ideas tainted.

Picking up on Catie's idea, if in fact the system is inherently flawed because of humans, then Capitalism, Communism,etc. would have been flawed the moments they were conceived.

My theory is that humanity copes with everything being flawed since humanity itself is flawed.
Thus, you can't look at something with moral and say, "This is flawed", because you are inherently flawed.
I guess it's an extrapolation of what Catie was saying.

If you want to put the idea of imperfection in context, then I would say that Capitalism, Communism, Anarchism,etc. work fine given the base idea of humanity; no government is corrupt, nor the ideas on paper tarnished.
What makes any form of government seem inherently fractured is the fact that there are always different components of any society judging their government on terms of disagreement or agreement based on how their individual lives are affected or effected.
People may disagree with the principles of a particular government based on their living standard, morals, personal experience, or perception of reality.

No entire collection of people living in a unified society at any one moment can be truly happy, or completely agree with the pretext that their lives fall under, for that would be a utopia.

"Ce n'est rien. J'y suis. J'y suis toujours." from "Qu'est-ce pour nous, mon coeur" by Arthur Rimbaud effectively articulates what I'm trying to say.

Capitalism pays my bills

Not Parliament's inability to function as an economic power in a Socialist country?

well, does anyone think education would work? i hate school as much as anyone, but thats only because most of my teachers are idiots. if people were taught to debate they might come to a consensus freely and be able to live happily. the problem with that is that too many people are rooted in conventional ideas. so maybe education might come in there. i don't think socialism is a workable system because capitalism already perpetuates the schoolcollegeworkdisneyworldworkworkcouch mentality. if everyone was assured employment it would only make things worse. and back to discussing music, what bands do you think have done well with a major label deal? as in keeping the music raw and honest?

None.

Actually, I believe a lot of the old punk bands were on major labels. I think they were able to work with that since that was the dawn of punk. I'm hoping to god that Against Me! keeps their values with their next album (on Sire), but since Searching For a Former Clarity was pretty mediocre, I doubt it. Old AM! still means so much to me.

I love how political punk bands (like Anti-Flag, kindof) claim that by signing to a major lable they will be able to get their message out to a greater audience. Bull****. Theres this cowboy kid in my school who is a huge homophobe, sexist, hunter, etc. and I see him where a Rise Against shirt all the time. I keep thinking of going up to him and telling him that they stand for everything he hates. I would if I was a little more of an *******. With Siren Song Rise Against kept things pretty real, but I haven't heard their new cd.

Oh, Jawbreaker. I think Dear You is great. It sounds like Jawbreaker, there's no noticeable major label influence, which is probably why is sold so poorly.

man, dude, if that **** went to my school i'd be so ****ing mad. Rise Against's new disc is better than siren song, at least in my opinion. the sound is more like revolutions (the last one on Fat wreck) but less harsh. and there's some experimentalism. and yeah, that distro thing is bull****. its about the production and extra moola.

I want to replace all those edited swear words with swear words that don't fit.

I'd sell out , make shedloads of money and then make the most unlistenable bollocks imaginable alienating most of my audience ,then claim that my selling out was a statement of post ironic irony or something. Journalists lap that kind of crap up.

Well, 90%+ of my school is like that. In government class we did some mock Congress thing and I was the only Democrat out of over 50 kids. Well, a couple of my friends are also Democrats but they decided to skip that day. Our county is over 80% Republican. You get used to it, but conservative bull**** still pisses me off. I'll admit it makes me feel pretty good knowing I'm one of the only sane people in the midst of a bunch of backwards, ignorant, bigoted rednecks. It shouldn't, but it does.

And I'll have to check out the new Rise Against CD. I definitely liked their records of Fat better than Siren Song, but it was still pretty good.

i'd be mad at the kid because i can't concieve the ideal of listening to a band without trying to understand their message. thats why i stopped listening to pop music. and i'm the only democrat in my class too. my friends are the undecided ones and everybody else is a ****ing republican. its funny that their so anti-communist yet their system is practically the same way. and my teacher ****ing hates my guts cause i annoy him to death with questions. and yeah, if you liked RPM, i think you'll really dig STW. its more of a return to the punk/hardcore sound, just with better sound production. i'm just somewhat annoyed cause i can't find a punk band signed to a major label that is still a punk band.

Reading this topic made me feel like I had to comment, its just so stupid.

Hierarchyis inherint in capitalism. There will always be haves and have nots in capitalism. Therefore it is impossible to live freely with capitalism. Capitalism provides incentive for companies to rape the planet and use sweatshop labor overseas. Capitalism creates a society in which ones merits are determined by the amount of capital they can acumulate, rather than what they do with that capital. No capitalism wont just "play nice". It hasnt for generations, there will be no change now.

FOr those of you that believe that capitalism isn't an evil institution it's easy to have that opinion sitting in front of your computer in the comfort of your home. Work in a maquladora in Mexico, a sweatshop in China, or go to the Amazon and watch rampant deforestation, or the displacement of native peoples in Chiapas, or the destruction of squats such as Ungdomshuset, or the decimation of native peoples here in America. All of the sudden capitalism doesnt seem so friendly. It's easy for us to sit back in our post industrial world and give praise for capitalism.

I also thinks its funny that you argue that bands are anti-capitalist because its an accepted stance. Since when? Are the people in this thread accepting it? Does society in general accept it? No, being anti capitalist is not a welcome concept in our society(unless your some libertarian). Maybe bands are anti-capitalist because capitalism is at its core a disgusting institution and most the time even supposed "punks" or "rebels" are to ignorant or apathetic to see that.

As for the argument that "punk labels are capitalist" COmpare the cost of any cd from a DIY punk distro to the costs of those at Best buy or FYE. There is a bif difference between paying $8 and $18, Yes punk labels charge money, unfortunetly that is the reality of our situation. If a label wishes to stay alfoat and the people runing it want to live then they are obligated to charge money for music. Just as I am oblgated to work 40 hours at a job I ****ing hate. Our society says that basic human nessecities such as shelter and food must be purchased (hence a very realiistic interpretation of "buy or die") which requires myself and record labels to operate inside the capitalist system when nessecary.

Once again at can't help but laught when people talk about how it's easy to be anti-capitalist without realizing the ignorance of their statement and the fact that anti-capitalists are not exactly welcomed in our society. Look at history, during the periods of rapid industrialization in America there was a huge anarchist/socialist movement in america. As a post industrial economy emerged and most hard labor was sent overseas the anarchist/socialist movement has shrank drastically.(Also thanks to the red scare(s) and subsequent purging of radical groups)

As for the argument that all institutions are flawed I think the big poing that you miss is that there is NO ultimate goal in capitalism other than to aquire capital for ones self. Where as socialism has an ultimate goal of a free and equal society with a system of production that allows for the needs and desires of a society without surplus labor. Or anarchism has an ultimate goal of a free and equal society based on cooperation. It is easy to write off socialism an anarchism as fringe movement with no momentum, but once again look at history. In 1968 students occupied Paris and the entire country of Frnce was on the brink of socialist revolution before they were betrayed by pro-capitalist elements within the socialist party. Its getting harder to harvest any discontent from "punks" as they would incresingly rather listen to what they are told by teachers and authorities, and surf the internet for free punk albums on soulseek, or go to the mall. But the possibility for a different world is out there right under your noses.

Most people probobly dont know whats going on in there own town as far as corporations raping the world (my town alone has arms manufacutrers and poluters based here, and its not a big town)

Anyway if your still sitting there scratching your head at "why be so anti-capitalism, its not that bad" go to your library and read up. Go read Keynes and then read some Marx or Bakunin and see who you agree with more. Read a biography of Reagan then read one about Trotsky and see who you like more. Or for a real quick simple read go fet "The proporus few and the restless many" by Noam Chomsky.

To quote Sylvia Pankhurst “I am going to fight capitalism even if it kills me. It is wrong that people like you should be comfortable and well fed while all around you people are starving.”

Or to further elaborate lets turn to Eugene V Debs
"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then and I say now while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prision, I am not free."

Although I dont for a moment suspect that anyone here will become a socialist or an anarchist, and most peole here will read this and disregard it as they listen to their Ipod and buy their hamburgers I think it's important that you realize that there is so much going on out there that you and I dont even realize and to be complacent is to give your consent to all of the destruction. Hate to quote up the place but "The most heroic word in all languages is revolution."

I wonder if anyone will actually read that...

capitalism pwnz

I don't know why you keep mentioning anarchism and socialism in the same breath, in anarchy there would be no government intervention therefore the economic system would be one of extreme capitalism... all of the means of production would be "owned" by individuals. In socialism, the government controls the means of production so as to help out the working class...

Personally I tend to shy away from both socialism and communism because I'm generally not in favor of giving more control to the government, I'd prefer that the people have it. Unfortunately, that just leads to the formation of corporations which begin to resemble government so the alternative isn't really much better. All economic systems seem to lead to someone getting screwed, that's just how it works. Someone has to lose a buck for you to make a buck.

I mention anarchim and socialism in the same breath because they are both radical anti-capitalit ideas. The argument that anarchism would result in extreme capitalims has no base. In an anarchistc society people would get theproducts they desire through cooperation and free assosiation. Town a has lots of turnips ton b has lot of hats, town a trades turnips for hats. Granted under anarchism one would be allowed to try to institute some sort of capitalist endevour, but no person would be obligated to participate. I could open a shoe factory and pay my employees and dictate their hours if the place i lived allowed it, but its up to the people to do what they want. There would also hypothetically be no need for capitalist enterprise because people would no longer feel the need to buy useless junk to feel good about themselves as a status symbol. A society of equals. This is why anarchy promises nothing, but gives everything. No government, no economy, no currency, no hieracrchy.

Your definition of socialism is completly backwards. In a socialist economy the PEOPLE own the means of production. GOvernment officials are directly eected with the possibility of instant recalls. The government officials would hypothetically be payed no more than the wrking individual thus insuring that they have similar intrests. The point of socialism isn't just to neifit the working class, but to create a classless society in which the state would "wither away". Socialism and communism are largely synonomous. Communism was coined by marx as his interpretation of socialist policies aplieing real world statistics to utopian socialist ideals. It sounds like your confusing socialism/communism with Stalinism, which is NOT communism/socialism. Thats just another lie your told in high school thats left over from the red scare. Socialism is not about giving more power to the government, its about giving all power to the people.

It sounds like you are trying to argue some sort of libertarian/objectivist platform that the government shouldnt have any control over the economy, and laissez faire capitalism is the best bet. This philosophy is pretty easy to rebut as capitalism has pven time and time again that when left unwatched it acts on its worst behavior, hence the formation of anti-trust laws, and the burgening socialist movements in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Contrary to your very Malthusian(1) philosophy that any economic system end in peple getting screwed we live in a world today where it is entirley possible that everyone could live together as equals, however as has been stated under capitalism there is no concept of equality. Thus yes as long as rampant capitalism remains there will be inequality, but if there is no buck to lose then ther is no buck to make.

This doesn't really make much sense to me. What you're talking about here is not just a different political/economic system, but a complete shift in the public mindset. There is a gap between "no government" and "no hierarchy" whatsoever. If you just stick to "no government," and people are allowed to freely trade goods (free trade... uh oh) those who can get their hands on the stuff people need most (be it jewels, oil, wheat whatever) will be free to charge whatever they want for it... even if we get rid of money as well they can demand absurd exchanges for their goods. Nobody would be forced to trade to get his goods, but if they NEED them they will. If people were capable of holding hands and cooperating to get everything they needed, they would do so under capitalism. The idea that removing all government control would somehow lead to the abolition of corporations and a turnaround of the laws of supply and demand is absurd to me.

In response to the stuff about socialism, the ultimate goal of socialism may be to put all the means of production in the hands of the people, but the policies of most socialist parties in Europe are to nationalize industry and provide better welfare, which is a sort of indirect "power to the people" thing because it helps out the lower classes and eases some of the harshness of capitalism, but it's still a stones-throw from communism. I agree that there is a difference between this and the transitional socialism which Marx envisioned.

well, i get the idea that most of you on here are older than i am (14) so its not like i know that much of what i'm talking about. but i thought that punk was about individualism and democracy, so i wondered why some bands had socialist ideals. and i understand hating capitalism for its backstabbing ways. but i don't think a socialist system would really help much. maybe the real problem (as some people mentioned before) is in the people. if people learned not to value money and power as much as friendship and freedom, maybe then a capitalist system would work. but about the only political theory books i've read are "Animal farm" and "1984" by Orwell. peace.

Very interesting thread... Probably 90% of the bands against "THE SYSTEM" are not experts in politics, sociology, history, and economics (there are a few that are) but still, those people choose not to be conformist, they realize we live by no means in a perfect world, they see what's wrong in the world, and they empathize with the "loosers side".

People nowadays don't realize what crude capitalism REALLY means, you only have to go a hundred years back, blatant exploitation by those who acquired their capital through violence and extortion... people literally dying an their work....

The fact most people in developed countries don't see is that this is happening right now in half of the world... the mighty and wealthy exploiting the rest for and only for their own benefit (and I don't mean Bill Gates, I mean the Warlords in Liberia or Ruanda, the narcos in Colombia).

In developed countries the pressure made by organized socialism has HUGELY "humanized" capitalism, don't believe it would have happened anyway we lived thousands of years with oppression being the rule, again, in developed countries we live in an exceptional age!!! but at what cost, maybe extreme poverty has mostly been eradicated but in part thanks to the exploitation of less developed countries (see where pretroleum comes from and the degree of wellbeing of the common people in those countries, who get the benefits, the ruling nobles/capitalists).

Anarchism, as deeply flawed at a "macro" level as it is, is the incarnation of the values of the Enlightenment (humanism, personal freedom, deeply rooted democracy)... those that sell anarchism simply as destruction and being against everything are not true anarchists to me.


English is not my first language, I wish I made at least some sense.


Cheers

All Nite Dinah, I agree with most everything you said, even though if we were to meet you'd most certainly view me as a hypocrite.

What I quoted by you, that thought has crossed my mind for years and years on end, and although I'd like to be more knowledgeable in political and economic theory (maybe to be able to quote, maybe to name a squat that occurred, I'm not sure), it pains me just sitting around.

Like you said, change is present "under our noses", that statement alone make me frustrated, because I feel so damn trapped when I'm too scared to organize something, protest something I see as wrong, or when I'm just too lazy to conceive ways to act on my disapproval of some majority policy at all.

It's easy to live in a first world country and have "leftist" theories, all the while sitting in an air-conditioned house, eating food from the supermarket, reading about impoverished Brazilian natives or starving, diseased Africans, but not taking a stand.

Not knowing how to start or being scared makes me angry, and I've done only extremely minor volunteerism, which doesn't come close to the amount of work that could be done for less fortunate individuals or areas being demolished by the ignorant mechanized strive for capital made by (as you said) American business people living in a post industrialized society.

I'm positive that if I knew you I would look up to you like some sort of hero (because you've always seemed to know what you're talking about), but I don't, and I guess it's just extremely refreshing to read something like that, I only wish I'd read or be a witness to conceptions like that more often.

By the way, I'm glad you posted, this is your first post in a year or something.
Do it more often!

Trauma, often I felt like you, I don't want to sound patronizing because for what I've read you seem a very intelligent person... but I would say don't worry about what you can't do right now, do whatever it's in your hand, opportunities to "do something" always arise and life is very long... and don't feel ashamed for what you have, just value it more deeply and share whenever you can.

Not being a fascist jerk is enough to me, unfortunately the world is still full of fools. I believe small changes end up adding to revolutionary changes.

And most important, enjoy whatever you do without fear (some jokingly define a fascist as a scared bourgois).

Sorry for the telegram style post ;)

Yes, I am talking about a complete change in mindset. I fully understand that at first it is difficult to grasp the concept that no one has to die in order for us to live, and that instead of having a society of competiition and death and destruction we could build a society that caters to the needs of everyone. That is the hardest part of talking revolutionary politics. Since birth people have the idea that capitalism is the only way to live, and that it is the best way to live. You are told that there will always be leaders and followers, and fed this idea of social darwanism. Fed the lies about communism, and before communism emerged as a threat fed lies about anarchism. Once you understand that there is MORE than capitalism you can begin to understand. In a anarchist society there would be no need to "charge whatever you want" because 1.There would be no reason to have more than someone else. 2. If one member of a collective group of a people is exploiting the other members they would have the ability to deal with it. 3. Once one understands that capitalism is fuled by surplus (be it labor or goods) and excess there is no need for things like $500 sneakers or $1 mil. cars. You have to try to understand that anarchism is a SOCIAL movement first, an economic idea second. If you can not liberate your mind from the confines of capitalist thought, you wil never be able to live as neither master nor slave. There is no way I could even hope to try to explain all parts of anarchist theory or answer all your questions, because I am far from a scholar on it. I dont know all the answers, but one thing I do know is that it is bickering over anarchism and communism that allows capitalism to thrive.

While we kick our feet and debate on the merits of socialism people are dying for no reason. This is not an exageration, only the stark reality of what our decadent culture has brought. You can argue that capitalism can be brought to a more "humane" form, but there will always be a need for "lower costs of production" and higher income, therfore someone will always be exploited. This is inherint in capitalism and can not be disputed. But once one frees ther mind of the lies that you are told about the benifits of competition and looks at the facts that are right there in front of there face, the homelessness, the poverty, the crime committed for material(capital) gain, the war, it becomes rather obvious that something must change. Keep in mind that capitalism as we know(post industrial) it today has only been around in the US for around 50 years, and already we are floating on debt bankrupting socil security(the supposed last stronghold for the poor) and engaged in endless wars. Go ahead and stand by capitalism or libertarian policies, but keep in mind that this system is weak and it's collapse is inevitable.

Before someone pulls out the example of the supposed prodigal son of capitalism, India. I would like to nip that in the bud. Look at the murder and suicide rates of India as coorelating with the GDP in of India. Or look at the amount of small farmers put out of work, giving up a traditional lifestyle carried out for generations to work in call centers for american companies. There was and excellent speaker on this topic in my town, unfortunetly I can't remember his name.

Indirect power to the people is better than no power to the people. Also keep in mind that most "socialist" countries in Europe are just social democracies. If you want to get into theory than according to Marx a true socialist revolution must occur around the world, it is impossible for one country to maintain a true socialist government alone.(Read the last line of the Communist manifesto) Hence the ability for countries to take the full leap into socialism. However something is better than nothing. Also ironicly the socialist candidate for president of france lost to Sarkozy who is a Gaulist. Taking control of the country at a time strikeingly similar to the social conditins of 1968.

This is baisically the point when you and I either agree to disagree, or you look at things in a different frame of mind. I repeat that the last thing I expect anyone reading this to do is become a devoted anarchist/socialist, as it is much easyier to just go wih the flow, than to voice opposition. Voiceing opposition can result in being beaten, arrested, and ortasized from your community. If you are genuinly intrested in anarchism or socialism I would recomend going to www. infoshop .org for alot of free resources. A much easier to read version of the stuff can be found at www. crimethinc .com which is a bsic primer to anarchist though without breaking down into in depth analysis. I also highly recomend touching bases with The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engles and What is to be done by Lenin. Civil disobedience by thoreau, The Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin, and Anarcho Syndicalism by Rudolpf Rocker for anarchist(Krpotkin and rocker anre anarcho syndicalists) thought.

If your still bent on the idea of competition being good read mutual aid by kropotkin. It was written in the hey day of social darwanist thought.

If you feel like you are pissed off and want to do something about it the best thing you can do is get educated. Learn as much as you can so that when someone comes spouting lies you can rebut them. That and quit living your life for some phony ideal of a house and a little house wife and two cars and a dog named spot. That has never been reality. Capitalism only truely worked for about 20 years following WWII, and even then people watched Leave it to Beaver and wondered why their lives wern't like that. Live your life for you not some silly capitalist. Buy less, work less, spend more time doing things you want, develop a way to make money without working, quit the system, and continue to agitate by going to protests and doing anything you can. There is alot that we can do once we start living or lives for ourselves. You can call me an idealist, but I'll call you jaded and boring.

Well said.

I think the problem is that I'm just too cynical and jaded for anarchy.. I think competition is so deeply ingrained in the human mindset that our race would be more likely to destroy itself than to transcend self-interest and help each other out. In fact, I believe that almost everything each one of us does is out of self-interest. I also think that people are too apathetic and scared of change to start a true revolution. I am personally very apathetic... I would be just as content using the system to my advantage as I would be to see it replaced by what you describe.

So yeah, the main issue is a difference in ideology. But people have been competing and killing each other and ignoring needless suffering for millennia, and I really don't see that changing anytime soon.

Word.


You don't sound condescending.
It's true I worry sometimes about what I can't do, but even more so I frustrate myself by avoiding oppurtunities that present themselves to me on a daily basis.
Where you might have misinterpreted my argument is telling me to not be ashamed, because I am in no way ashamed of where I'm at right now in life.
Every consecutive decision you make in life adds up to the end (I'm not saying that life is necessarily just a summation) and you're given a base to start at in the beginning of the math problem.
Just because I wasn't born a bedouin in the deserts of Africa as opposed to a middle-class white kid in Canada doesn't mean I'm ashamed of what I have.
It just means I would like to give more to the less fortunate individuals in the world.
And it frustrates me on such a cosmic scale I think, just because there are so many billions of people who are less fortunate than me, and I have every oppurtunity to give to them things I have to give.
You're theory about minor changes in lifestyle leading to revolution through majority is completely true.
To the ending sentences of your post; of course I'm going to enjoy whatever I do without fear, life only comes around one time (and your remark about fascists made me laugh).

If only people talked this much about punk on this forum.

I'm sorry but I find this to be horribly bias, moderately uninformed and highly condescending.

First of all, Capitalism is the only way one could possible achieve freedom. I wonder under what other type of economic system you think people could possible find a higher degree of freedom? Until thats answered, Ill tell you why Capitalism is unmatched...

First of all, the entire economic system is governed by supply and demand. Its hard to imagine that people do not get what they want in a system they gives to people what they want, and has no outlet for things they do not. I do agree that a completely free market leads to potential monopolies but with minor restrictions and federal regulation, the issue of monopolies has been solved.

More over, and Friedman suggests over and over again, All forms of government imposed regulation not only fails, but achieves results that require more work and only serve to keep from people that which they seek. Things they'd have achieved already in a capitalist system.

And while you never said there should be government regulated policies on how trade occurs, you renouncing of capitalism leaves you with two options. Heavy Regulatory centralized government, or anarchy. Given this is both an intelligent discussion that also is taking place in the punk forums, I have no idea which one you'd option for.

You also wrote about how we're not able to comment sitting in our post-industrial westernized homes. If that were the case, why are you getting to have an opinion? Have you been to the third world? I know I haven't but I've read countless texts and reports/articles on development and the plight that we're looking to over come. The truth is, Capitalism works there.

Every time our "western" eyes see a 'sweat shop" we run screaming to the hills (capitol hill). The truth is, as we've seen with human rights, the 3rd world does not view work the same way our lazy western asses do. Nicholas Kristof's articles in the New York Times show over and again that those in the sweatshops want the 6 day a week, 15 hour a day job. He writes that they are horrified that Americans boycott the sweatshops because this is the only source of income.

As for the wages, thats a completely different context. One woman remarked, "$5 a day allows me to buy mosquito nets so my children don't die of malaria." I find it rather obnoxious that you would be so arrogant and elitist toward people when its evident you don't really know much about the topic at hand. You come off as every other trust fund deuche bag who stands on the corner and preaches about "smashing the capitalist state" and "the district of corruptia."

I'm more than willing to have this out with people, and if you "didn't understand something". By all means, allow me to clarify because Capitalism gets a bum rap, but its nothing more than uninformed, half-assed bull****.

Capitalism and Freedom

You might want to read the longer posts... All_Nite_Dinah's case wasn't just against capitalism as an economic system, but all the assumptions and the "western" mindset that come with it.

Also, I'm more or less on your side, but about the whole "sweatshop" issue, the issue isn't really that these people don't want to be working that much (hypothetically nobody is forcing them to work,) but the simple fact that they are being exploited... that they could be paid a lot more for the work that they do but they are not because corporations don't need to pay them more. Just because they're oblivious to the fact that they're being exploited, and that their meager wages are enough to cover their basic survival needs, doesn't mean that it's necessarily justified.

not really, im going to work right now (to get exploited) and would love to make this a better response but understand that things are scaled to pay. If they couldn't afford to live with that job, they wouldn't. If they got paid what we would, they'd be millionaires and the only real solution to this "problem" is to build more sweatshops to the supply and demand is more focused on the demand side. If companies needed workers more than workers needed job (because for example they already had a job) the conditions would go up to entice the works to the job site.

See capitalism would save the third world.