Are you Anti-Globalisation? Are you an Anti-Capitalist?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:08 pm

Are you sceptical or openly opposed to Globalisation?

Do you class yourself as an "anti-capitalist" or oppose the structure of capitalism?

Well I have some very good news for you.

You have a very powerful and influential friend to help your cause. In fact, he is widely regarded as the most powerful man on the planet.

Here he is! 45th President of the United States of America - Mr Donald Trump.

I'm sure ALL the anti-capitalists are busy making placards celebrating Mr. Donald Trump in time for the next protest for the next G20/G8 conference.

Flatline · Post by **Flatline** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Globalists are the enemy of the people.Capitalists are for the people,not sure where Donald Trump fits in,he seems a mixture of the two.Probably a globalist saying the right things for the capitalists.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:44 pm

Has anyone got a spare mask, I don't want the police the see my face whilst I'm smashing the place up....

I mean peacefully protesting.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 7:54 pm

Oh yes..Globalisation, like nuclear weapons cannot be undone...I said years ago that the negatives would outweigh the few positives.. that is what I still think..there is a long way to go with Globalisation and we ( probably) are going to come out on the wrong end of it..

Capitalism is 'our system'.
It ain't going anywhere soon.
It works badly for BILLIONS of people so it should be reformed.. those who benefit most from the system are massively powerful/ influential/super-rich and will do (are doing) everything in their power to ensure that the system hardly changes..
e.g. - George Osborne in his new job as Editor of the London Evening Standard (laughs)...London has a population of about 8 million and only one 'evening' (it is out by midday, first edition) paper.
Now it is free, given away at tube and railway stations and therefore has a decent number of readers these days.

I can't see Gideon (a failed Chancellor you have to say, looking at the whole piece (austerity policy) doing much to argue against globalisation and capitalism.

That's what I mean.
The system is crooked.
It won't change easily.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:03 pm

Flatline wrote:Globalists are the enemy of the people.

You're genuinely full of hate for anyone who doesn't think the same as you, aren't you?

Do you even know why you're opposed to globalisation, or are you just opposed to it cos people you hate aren't?

Flatline · Post by **Flatline** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:18 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're genuinely full of hate for anyone who doesn't think the same as you, aren't you?

Do you even know why you're opposed to globalisation, or are you just opposed to it cos people you hate aren't?

Shut it,you commie tit!

Cirrus_Minor · Post by **Cirrus_Minor** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:23 pm

Globalisation can be defined as increased trade cultural exchange which i would imagine most people would see as a good thing. If however we are referring to multinational capitalism then I would be amongst those who see themselves as anti-capitalist.

I do find it difficult to see Donald Trump as ant-capitist and certainly not one who would oppose the structure of capitalism.

But fair play for a decent fishing trip, I'm sure you will get many bites, mine included here.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:30 pm

Flatline wrote:Shut it,you commie tit!

Extremely unfair.

Tits can be both easy on the eye AND useful!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:51 pm

Simply put the problem with Capitalism is that it inevitably leads to the same outcome as Communism. Poverty for most but riches for those in charge. The only difference is who is in charge. Under Communism its the government, under Capitalism it's the Corporations. It's never the people.

Right now we have far too much Capitalism and not enough socialism to restrain corporate greed from effectively enslaving the working class. Poverty in rising, house prices are ridiculous when compared to the annual wage of a typical working class person working full time, income inequality is out of control and when the rich **** up the economy it's not them that pay the price. It's everyone but them. We have austerity because they were irresponciblely greedy and because regulations protecting the economy from their greed were repealed. Social services are being cut to pay for tax cuts for the rich under the obscene logic that if we reduce their taxes then they'll pay their taxes. These people tanked our economy, cost millions of people their homes and savings yet it's up to us to give them ******* incentives to contribute to society? That's capitalism for you.

Capitalism has it's good parts, but letting it run out of control is the single biggest obstacle to progress in the modern world.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:03 pm

It's reported that G20 has "left out" their commitment to free trade by dropping their "anti-protectionist pledge" at the end of meeting in Baden-Baden.

What do we mean by globalisation? The "reach" of many large enterprises into multiple countries by definition makes them "multinational" enterprises. Do we object to multinational companies creating jobs in the "emerging" economies? Or, do we, like Donald Trump, want to protect jobs in our own country?

What do we mean by capitalism? Is it the opposite of socialism, or something else? Are we looking at capitalism as a way of operating economies or as a political ideology? Without capitalism we'd all be sitting at home spinning and weaving our own clothes, metaphorically speaking. The desire for personal advancement is what drives us all forward. Yes, we want to control the "robber barons" and monopolists and cartels that distort the free markets. But, the opposite of capitalism is the central planning economics of the soviet union and other "communist" states. Their economies don't progress. Their economies don't create wealth that can be shared with their populations.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:03 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:It [Capitalism] works badly for BILLIONS of people so it should be reformed.. those who benefit most from the system are massively powerful/ influential/super-rich and will do (are doing) everything in their power to ensure that the system hardly changes.

This is very typical if the ignorant kind of wrong-headed thinking that goes into an anti-capitalist mindset.

Capitalism is enriching BILLIONS of people.

Global poverty is falling at an exceptional rate and has being doing so since very shortly after the collapse of the USSR. Where have the biggest falls in poverty been seen? In the two largest countries who opened their boarders to trade and adopted capitalist trade systems. Namely India and China.

Where has poverty remained entrenched? Africa - where country after country has adopted protectionist, Marxist and Socialist measures, placed large tariffs on inward and outward trade and has suffered the indefensible blocking of its produce by the EU.

The debate is over bar the idiots. Capitalism is mankind's greatest ever poverty eradicator - by a margin of BILLIONS.

Cirrus_Minor wrote:I do find it difficult to see Donald Trump as ant-capitist and certainly not one who would oppose the structure of capitalism.

In that case you haven't been listened to what he has been saying repeatedly. And you've missed the big news on this matter:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39315098" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In one swell foop President Trump has achieved a bigger reversal in the advancement of global free trade and capitalism than any of the leaders of the USSR even came close to.

President Trump has forced the G20 to drop its commitment to oppose protectionism. This is the biggest setback that capitalism has ever suffered since the USSR was defeated. It is potentially the biggest setback to reducing global poverty the world has witnessed since before the fall of the Soviet Union.

And yet few people seem to register or even understand the magnitude of what this could mean.

It's why I've been calling Trump's opponents idiots for a while - they are apparently all silent on this matter. It's as if they simply do not understand how the world works. It's why the morons trying to label him as a 'fascist' were always going to fail.

The guy has just gone and done what "professional protesters" have been demanding for years.

Yep, that's right.

All those placard waving, graffiti spraying, anarchist, anti-capitalist idiots with their faces covered in piercings (behind Guy Fawkes masks in recent years) have just had the very thing they've been calling to happen for years and years .... and none of them seem to have even noticed.

The USA has abandoned its support of capitalism and it hasn't even made the lead headline on the BBC.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:09 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Simply put the problem with Capitalism is that it inevitably leads to the same outcome as Communism. Poverty for most but riches for those in charge. The only difference is who is in charge. Under Communism its the government, under Capitalism it's the Corporations. It's never the people.

It's a shame you can no longer visit the USSR Charlie and queue for hours for the honour of buying a loaf of bread. If you had to do that every day, perhaps you'd cherish the freedoms you possess a little more and you'd realise that one system (capitalism) was far better than the other (Communism)?

America won the Cold War because they (and WE also) were far, far, far more productive.

Whilst we spread freedom, genuine political debate and wealth and riches, the USSR spied on its own, sent them to labour camps, oppressed its peoples and left them queuing for basic necessities that were abundant in the West.

This didn't happen "by accident". It wasn't because one system was corrupt and the other virtuous.

It's because one system works and the other one doesn't.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:10 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Simply put the problem with Capitalism is that it inevitably leads to the same outcome as Communism. Poverty for most but riches for those in charge. The only difference is who is in charge. Under Communism its the government, under Capitalism it's the Corporations. It's never the people.

Right now we have far too much Capitalism and not enough socialism to restrain corporate greed from effectively enslaving the working class. Poverty in rising, house prices are ridiculous when compared to the annual wage of a typical working class person working full time, income inequality is out of control and when the rich **** up the economy it's not them that pay the price. It's everyone but them. We have austerity because they were irresponciblely greedy and because regulations protecting the economy from their greed were repealed. Social services are being cut to pay for tax cuts for the rich under the obscene logic that if we reduce their taxes then they'll pay their taxes. These people tanked our economy, cost millions of people their homes and savings yet it's up to us to give them ******* incentives to contribute to society? That's capitalism for you.

Capitalism has it's good parts, but letting it run out of control is the single biggest obstacle to progress in the modern world.

Hi IT, seems I've posted a different view.

You only appear to be speaking about the UK experience. What about the rest of the world? What about the people in Africa, Asia and Latin America?

Poverty in the UK isn't rising. The "relative poverty" defined as below 60% of the mean wage may be rising, but if you were getting richer how does that make me poorer? How would you compare the level of poverty in the UK with the situations for the economies of central Europe, i.e. fairly recent joiners to the EU? And, how do you think it compares with populations across the world?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:12 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Simply put the problem with Capitalism is that it inevitably leads to the same outcome as Communism. Poverty for most but riches for those in charge. The only difference is who is in charge. Under Communism its the government, under Capitalism it's the Corporations. It's never the people.

I work 36 and a quarter hours a week, own my own house and car, and am writing this from Norway. It won't be my last foreign holiday this year. My grandparents worked 60 hours, one set owned their own house but the other didn't, neither owned a car, and their holidays were a week in Blackpool every year.

Capitalism is what has driven me into poverty, is it? Because I haven't noticed that much communism in this country in the last hundred or so years. How many of us on this board are worse off than our grandparents? For better or for worse, that's what a capitalist system brings.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:17 pm

Yeah, because my post was a ringing endorsement of Communism.

This is one of the many problems you have, you think that any criticism of your religion, Capitalism, is an endorsement of Communism.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:20 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yeah, because my post was a ringing endorsement of Communism.
This is one of the many problems you have, you think that any criticism of your religion, Capitalism, is an endorsement of Communism.

Who the hell is this aimed at?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:21 pm

dsr wrote:I work 36 and a quarter hours a week, own my own house and car, and am writing this from Norway. It won't be my last foreign holiday this year. My grandparents worked 60 hours, one set owned their own house but the other didn't, neither owned a car, and their holidays were a week in Blackpool every year.

Capitalism is what has driven me into poverty, is it? Because I haven't noticed that much communism in this country in the last hundred or so years. How many of us on this board are worse off than our grandparents? For better or for worse, that's what a capitalist system brings.

Succinct and perfect.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:24 pm

Not at all anti capitalist.

Anti-globalism with all my heart.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:31 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yeah, because my post was a ringing endorsement of Communism.
This is one of the many problems you have, you think that any criticism of your religion, Capitalism, is an endorsement of Communism.

Well? Who are you aiming this at?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:36 pm

dsr wrote:I work 36 and a quarter hours a week, own my own house and car, and am writing this from Norway. It won't be my last foreign holiday this year. My grandparents worked 60 hours, one set owned their own house but the other didn't, neither owned a car, and their holidays were a week in Blackpool every year.

Capitalism is what has driven me into poverty, is it? Because I haven't noticed that much communism in this country in the last hundred or so years. How many of us on this board are worse off than our grandparents? For better or for worse, that's what a capitalist system brings.

Do you think your situation is typical of the working class nowadays?

What system is it, if not capitalism, that means people earning minimum wage can't support their families without benefits?

You seem to think that because you're doing well that it was all down to capitalism and had nothing to do with the socialist protections you and your family had enjoyed over the decades. Socialism educated you. Socialism kept you alive if you fell sick. Socialism has protected you from experiencing far more crime than you have. Socialism allowed you to feed yourself when you had no job. Socialism protected you from unfair firing and exploitation from your employers. If you had died because you couldn't afford medicine, or kept having your belongings stolen because there was no police, or went unemployed and couldnt feed yourself because there were no benefits which then allows employers to pay you £2/hour and make you work 80 hours a week because otherwise you starve, would you still have your house? Would you still enjoy holidays?

There are so many things that you owe to socialism in terms of credit for your situation that you either don't realise or deliberately ignore.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:40 pm

Answer in your own time, Charlie.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:46 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yeah, because my post was a ringing endorsement of Communism.
This is one of the many problems you have, you think that any criticism of your religion, Capitalism, is an endorsement of Communism.

Rowls wrote:Who the hell is this aimed at?

Rowls wrote:Well? Who are you aiming this at?

Rowls wrote:Answer in your own time, Charlie.

Like I said - absolutely no hurry to answer this tricky question quickly. Just as soon as you're ready.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:51 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Do you think your situation is typical of the working class nowadays?

What system is it, if not capitalism, that means people earning minimum wage can't support their families without benefits?

You seem to think that because you're doing well that it was all down to capitalism and had nothing to do with the socialist protections you and your family had enjoyed over the decades. Socialism educated you. Socialism kept you alive if you fell sick. Socialism has protected you from experiencing far more crime than you have. Socialism allowed you to feed yourself when you had no job. Socialism protected you from unfair firing and exploitation from your employers. If you had died because you couldn't afford medicine, or kept having your belongings stolen because there was no police, or went unemployed and couldnt feed yourself because there were no benefits which then allows employers to pay you £2/hour and make you work 80 hours a week because otherwise you starve, would you still have your house? Would you still enjoy holidays?

There are so many things that you owe to socialism in terms of credit for your situation that you either don't realise or deliberately ignore.

Practical capitalism doesn't mean an anarchistic state with no taxes. Practical capitalism, as we have it in this country, does involve all that taxation and spending.

Anyway, when my capitalist grandparents were buying their own house, there was no NHS, limited pensions and dole money, limited employee protection (it was pre-general strike), and no minumum wage. Even so, they were significantly better off than their parents, who had left school at 8 rather than 12, and didn't get a week in Blackpool every year.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:53 pm

Zing!

Thank Marx himself that the renowned Socialist Sir Robert Peel invented the Socialist Union of Police Officers.

Without Socialism there'd be no police, obvs.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:54 pm

dsr wrote:Practical capitalism doesn't mean an anarchistic state with no taxes. Practical capitalism, as we have it in this country, does involve all that taxation and spending.

I wasn't arguing against practical capitalism, and the OP wasn't talking about practical capitalism in his opening post. I'm saying, right now, we have too much capitalism and not enough social protections against the worst, most exploitative aspects of capitalism.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:54 pm

Oh, but if you could perhaps answer the question I've posed a number of times Charlie it would clear up who you were referring to.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:57 pm

Rowls wrote:Zing!

Thank Marx himself that the renowned Socialist Sir Robert Peel invented the Socialist Union of Police Officers.

Without Socialism there'd be no police, obvs.

There'd still be a police force, but you'd have to pay for it like a subscription service - similar to this.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:59 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I wasn't arguing against practical capitalism, and the OP wasn't talking about practical capitalism in his opening post. I'm saying, right now, we have too much capitalism and not enough social protections against the worst, most exploitative aspects of capitalism.

That's hardly the same as "capitalism inevitably leads to the same outcome as communism", is it.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:59 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:There'd still be a police force, but you'd have to pay for it like a subscription service - similar to this.

Nope. The Peelers (that's the police to you and me) were paid by general taxation.

And, if you don't mind awfully, who were you referring to by this?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yeah, because my post was a ringing endorsement of Communism.
This is one of the many problems you have, you think that any criticism of your religion, Capitalism, is an endorsement of Communism.

I hate to keep asking the same question. If you'd answer, I wouldn't have to.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:02 pm

Rowls wrote:Nope. The Peelers (that's the police to you and me) were paid by general taxation.

I never said they weren't.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:02 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I wasn't arguing against practical capitalism, and the OP wasn't talking about practical capitalism in his opening post. I'm saying, right now, we have too much capitalism and not enough social protections against the worst, most exploitative aspects of capitalism.

Hi IT, can I suggest that you are blaming capitalism for human nature - and it's the same human nature that exists in socialism (and communism, if that is different). Capitalists are just as good as any others in providing social protections.

Can I recommend Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations" - a great Scottish economist.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:03 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi IT, can I suggest that you are blaming capitalism for human nature - and it's the same human nature that exists in socialism (and communism, if that is different). Capitalists are just as good as any others in providing social protections.

Can I recommend Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations" - a great Scottish economist.

I'm blaming human nature for Capitalism not working by itself, just like human nature is to blame for Communism not working by itself.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:04 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I never said they weren't.

You implied they were paid for by subscription.

The one thing you actually "never said" was an answer to the very simple question I asked you.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:04 pm

Rowls wrote:You implied they were paid for by subscription.

No i didn't. I wasn't even talking about them.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:06 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm blaming human nature for Capitalism not working by itself, just like human nature is to blame for Communism not working by itself.

OK. So is your view that "socialism" is "good" human nature?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:09 pm

No. I don't believe there is a single theory of economics that can work on its own, because humans are shits.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:13 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:... Socialism has protected you from experiencing far more crime than you have.

Rowls wrote:Zing!
Thank Marx himself that the renowned Socialist Sir Robert Peel invented the Socialist Union of Police Officers.
Without Socialism there'd be no police, obvs.

Imploding Turtle wrote:There'd still be a police force, but you'd have to pay for it like a subscription service - similar to this.

Rowls wrote:Nope. The Peelers (that's the police to you and me) were paid by general taxation.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I never said they weren't.

Yes you did - I've quoted it above. Like I said below:

Rowls wrote:You implied they were paid for by subscription.

Imploding Turtle wrote:No i didn't. I wasn't even talking about them.

So you were talking about Socialism 'protecting us from crime' but this didn't refer to a police force? And when you provided a link to subscription police force, that wasn't for the purposes of talking about police forces generally?

And then, of course, there is the question you still haven't answered - who were you referring to in the following post?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yeah, because my post was a ringing endorsement of Communism.
This is one of the many problems you have, you think that any criticism of your religion, Capitalism, is an endorsement of Communism.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:19 pm

So just to summarise on THE QUESTION, ImplodingTurtle:

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yeah, because my post was a ringing endorsement of Communism.
This is one of the many problems you have, you think that any criticism of your religion, Capitalism, is an endorsement of Communism.

Rowls wrote:Who the hell is this aimed at?

Rowls wrote:Well? Who are you aiming this at?

Rowls wrote:Answer in your own time, Charlie.

Rowls wrote:Like I said - absolutely no hurry to answer this tricky question quickly. Just as soon as you're ready.

Rowls wrote:Oh, but if you could perhaps answer the question I've posed a number of times Charlie it would clear up who you were referring to.

Rowls wrote:And, if you don't mind awfully, who were you referring to by this?
I hate to keep asking the same question. If you'd answer, I wouldn't have to.

Rowls wrote:...The one thing you actually "never said" was an answer to the very simple question I asked you.

????????

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:20 pm

I honestly don't know how to respond to someone as stupid as you. You're the one who brough the Peelers into the conversation and yet you're saying I was talking about them before you mentioned them.

The more you post the more i'm sure that you're why we have to have health & safety regulations.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:24 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I honestly don't know how to respond ...

It's easy - you just answer the question.

You said this:

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yeah, because my post was a ringing endorsement of Communism.
This is one of the many problems you have, you think that any criticism of your religion, Capitalism, is an endorsement of Communism.

And I asked this:

Rowls wrote:Who the hell is this aimed at?

So all you have to do to answer the question is ... wait for it ... answer the question.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:33 pm

ImplodingTurtle.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:39 pm

I may regret getting involved here, but isn't it generally understood that if you don't quote someone else, you are replying to the (immediately) preceding post?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:41 pm

Greenmile wrote:I may regret getting involved here, but isn't it generally understood that if you don't quote someone else, you are replying to the (immediately) preceding post?

But people can post in between this happening, blurring the boundaries of who is being replied to.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:41 pm

Communism assumes everybody is, or should be treat as equal.

Which is an awkward concept to accept.

Particularly, when some of the most ardent protagonists of this political stance (responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people) view the world as being made up of themselves and "idiots"

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:48 pm

Maybe IT's psychic and was replying to Ringo's post in advance

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:08 am

Greenmile wrote:Maybe IT's psychic and was replying to Ringo's post in advance

I reckon you're on to something there. Socialists/communists espouse institutional equality. While simultaneously believing that the world is populated with themselves, the intellectually superior , with the natural ability to prophecy.

And "the stupid"

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:49 am

dsr wrote:That's hardly the same as "capitalism inevitably leads to the same outcome as communism", is it.

I honestly didn't think i needed to be so explicitely clear that i was talking about a purely capitalist system and a purely communist system leading to the same thing, but apparently, for you, I did.

You think you owe you success in life to capitalism but you don't. You owe it just as much to socialism, i've already explained some of the reasons why.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:04 am

I'm scared to choose one cus I bet there both somehow racist...

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:18 am

Nah, only if you don't understand it.

Regarding the point about us being better off than our parents.

Are we really, as a nation?

Not sure, and certainly sure that as a nation our children will not be better off overall

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:23 am

By what measure are we better off than our parents?