The Doctor Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Reading about the occupy Wall Street protests and the imitation protests it sparked over here (such as outside St. Paul's Cathedral) it got me wondering, is capitalism really a good system for the world? The majority of the wealth owned by the minority of people, the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, seems like a poor way of managing the world. Marxism did have its practical faults, but are they really worse than the practical faults of the current system?
Rincewind Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Hope this helps. List of "you have two cows" definitions (The definitions have, of course, no scientific value and may reflect certain points of view.) Anarchism: You have two cows. You keep the cows and steal your neighbour's bull. You ignore the government. Meanwhile, your neighbours try to take the cows and kill you. The cows decide you have no right to do anything with their milk and leave to form their own society. Aristocracy: You have two cows. You sell both and buy one really big cow - with a pedigree. Army -- United States: You have two cows. You don't ask. They don't tell. Artist -- Visual: You have two cows. You suspend them in formaldehyde in glass display boxes. In London. Barter: You have two cows; you want chickens; you set out to find another farmer who has chickens and wants a cow. Baathism: You have two cows. They compete in blaming everything on the Jews until the one with the higher milk revenues grows a mustache and starts gassing you. When it attacks your neighbor, the world just pushes it back to your feedlot and says killing it would violate your sovereignty. Bureaucracy: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows. Bureaucracy -- United States: You have two cows. One has BSE. You don't bother to check if they have BSE, lest you find out, and then declare there is no problem from BSE in your country. Bureaucracy -- British: You have two cows. One has BSE. You get a vet to give the other one the "all clear", and then declare there is no problem from BSE in your country. Bureaucracy -- European Union: You have two cows. The EU declares them to be fruit in order to conform to a rare Belgian custom of making Cow Jam (jam being required to have at least 45% fruit). Bureaucracy -- Indian: You have two cows. But since these cows are holy cows, you cannot tell them what to do, or milk them, or do anything useful with them. The cows however, have no such barriers. The emerging liberal democracy requires one to fill out 37 triplicate forms before killing anything, and cows cannot write. Thus the cows do not slaughter you, you do not slaughter the cows, and the pacifist monks are satisfied. Bureaucracy -- United States: You have two cows. The government takes both, loses one while moving it to a farm in Puerto Rico and forgets to milk the other. You are then paid to not milk cows. Canadaism: You have two cows. Vous avez deux vaches. Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Cartesian Dualism: You have two cows. Therefore you are. Catholicism: You have two cows. You feel guilty for having cows and go to confession; your parish priest tells you that having cows is not in and of itself a sin in the eyes of God, but if you are feeling guilty about it, perhaps you should free the cows and say ten Hail Marys. Centralism: You have two cows. They are in the middle of the field with 100,000,000 other cows. Communism: You have two cows. Your neighbours help you take care of them, and you all share the milk. Conservativism: You have two cows. You freeze the milk, embalm the cows and charge people to look at them.. Counterculture: Wow, dude, there's like... these two cows, man. You got to have some of this milk. Deconstructionism: You have two cows, or is it that two cows have you? Democracy #1: You have two cows. They outvote you 2-1 to ban all meat and dairy products. Democracy #2: You have two cows. Your neighbours decide who gets the milk. Despotism -- Modern: You have two cows. The government steals your cows and shoots you, but in interests of pleasing the global community, name you as a "Militant Rebel Insurgent", call their government an "Enlightened Centralised Executive", and ask for UN peacekeeping troops to come and separate the radical separationist cow-owners from normal people. Dictatorship: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you. Dyslexia: You have two woks. Environmentalism #1: You have two cows. Government regulations require your cows to wear protective headgear so they do not allow bacteria to die and illegalise the killing of parasites by aggravated cows. Environmentalism #2: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them. Existentialism: You have two cows. You declare "Hell is the cows". (See Jean Paul Sartre.) Fascism #1: You have two cows. The government seizes both and sells you the milk. You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage. Fascism #2: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk. Feminism: You have two cows. They get married and adopt a veal calf. Feudalism: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk. Frisbeetarianism: You have two cows. One of them flies up on the roof and gets stuck. You smoke a joint and hope the government provides cow ladders. Fundamentalism #1: You have two cows. The government kills you for owning cows, confiscates your cows, and then kills everyone who suggests that the government should be killed for owning cows. Fundamentalism #2: You have two cows. The Bible does not mention cows, and the government confiscates them because they do not exist. Idealism: You have two cows. You get married and your partner milks them. Industrialism: You have two cows. You dissect them both, and figure out how to build a milk-factory instead. Labor Unionisim: You have two cows. They band together with everyone else's cows to form the Cow People's Union, or CPU. They demand higher wages and shorter working hours. You respond by increasing wages and working hours. As your house burns and your windows are smashed in, you realise that your life depends on these cows, and their happiness is part of your survival. You decide to tell that to God. Liberalism #1: You have two cows. You give away one cow and get the government to give you a new cow. Then you give them both away. Liberalism #2: You have two cows. You sell both to the rich. The government then taxes the rich one cow and gives it to the poor. Libertarianism #1: Go away. What I do with my cows is none of your business. Libertarianism #2: You have two cows. One has actually read the constitution, believes in it, and has some really good ideas about government. The cow runs for office, and while most people agree that the cow is the best candidate, nobody except the other cow votes for her because they think it would be "throwing their vote away." Libertarianism #3: You have two cows. You let them do what they want. Marxism/Leninism: The proletarian cows unite and overthrow the bourgeoisie cow-herds. The egalitarian democratic cow revolutionary state with the cow party as vanguard disintegrates over time. Marx choked on a veggie-burger before he could explain what happens to the use-value, exchange-value and sign-value of bovine leather. Militarism: You have two cows. The government takes both cows and presses you into military service. Nazism: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you. New Dealism: You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the sink. The government insists there is a giant storage tank where all the milk goes. New Zealandism: You have two sheep. Nihilism: There are no cows. There never were. You have a cigarette and a cup of black coffee to ponder the cow-shaped hole in the universe. Pacifism: You have two cows. They stampede you. Perotism: You have two cows. You aren't allowed to sell the milk to Mexico. Platonism: You have a reflection of two perfect cows. Their milk tastes like water. You look for two real cows to milk. Plutocracism: You have two cows. Your richer neighbours get to take one of them and the other's milk because they are richer. In rebellion, you become richer and take three of their cows and the fourth's milk. This continues until the cows decide to invent the concept of "Cow-munism", band together, become richer than everyone, and take everything and its milk. Political Correctness: You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is a symbol of the phallocentric, war-mongering, intolerant past) two differently-aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender. Poverty: You don't have any cows. Protectionism: You have two cows. You can't buy a bull from another country. Protestantism: You have two cows. Your neighbour has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbour. You feel righteous. Redistributionism: You have two cows. Everyone should have the same amount of cow. The government takes both cows, cuts them up, and spends more than the cows are worth giving everyone a little piece of cow. Republicanism: You have two cows. Your neighbour has none. So what? Simpsonism: You have two cows. Mmmm... Cows. Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbour. Socialism -- Bureaucratic: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you should need. Socratic Methodism: How many cows do I have? Why? Surrealism: You have two cows. The government paints one green and requires you to take harmonica lessons. Survivorism: You have two cows. They get taken to a remote farm and go through different challenges to win the "immunity idol". Then they vote each other off and a "jury" of other cows pick one to win a million dollars. The winner eats the money and dies from internal paper cuts and the loser goes on to make millions from sponsors and ads. Theocracy -- Iranian style: You have two cows. All the world believes only one is a dictator and the other is a democrat, but you can't see any difference and badly want to get rid of both. Theocracy -- Taliban style: You have two cows. You turn them loose in the Afghan countryside and they both die. You blame the godless American infidels. Theocracy -- Saudi style: You have two cows. The government says God has appointed it as the Eternal Guardian of the Two Holy Cows and pockets all the milk revenues. It grants you the choice either to spread the divine message or to suffer decapitation. Taoism The cow that can be milked is not the true cow. (Good thing you have two.) Totalitarianism: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned. United Nationism: You have two cows. France and Russia veto you from milking them. The United States and Britain veto the cows from milking you. China abstains. (see UN Security Council)
FoxyPV Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Reading about the occupy Wall Street protests and the imitation protests it sparked over here (such as outside St. Paul's Cathedral) it got me wondering, is capitalism really a good system for the world? The majority of the wealth owned by the minority of people, the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, seems like a poor way of managing the world. Marxism did have its practical faults, but are they really worse than the practical faults of the current system? No.
Houdini Logic Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 There is a much bigger question here, which is what system is good for 'the people'? I tend to think anything involving people is generally bad for 'the people', so basically we're fucked
Rincewind Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 There are the stupid, the greedy, and the greedy stupid
davieG Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Corruption, lying, cheating is endemic in most countries so it matters not what system and whatever system is in place will need controls but then it always comes back to: Who is policing the police and are those doing the controlling the most corrupt?
Guest MattP Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Reading about the occupy Wall Street protests and the imitation protests it sparked over here (such as outside St. Paul's Cathedral) it got me wondering, is capitalism really a good system for the world? The majority of the wealth owned by the minority of people, the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, seems like a poor way of managing the world. Marxism did have its practical faults, but are they really worse than the practical faults of the current system? Yes. Pretty basic situation. Big Bad Capitalist USA Communist Cuba 30 odd miles apart, in one of the countries thousands of the residents each year risk their life trying to swim/sail through shark infested waters to get to the other one, I'm sure you dont need telling which one it is. Captilism isnt perfect by any means, but its the best system I have seen, I would hate to live in a country that doesnt suppore free market capital and the opportunity to be the best you can be.
Master Fox Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Reading about the occupy Wall Street protests and the imitation protests it sparked over here (such as outside St. Paul's Cathedral) it got me wondering, is capitalism really a good system for the world? The majority of the wealth owned by the minority of people, the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, seems like a poor way of managing the world. Marxism did have its practical faults, but are they really worse than the practical faults of the current system? Been studying politics today?
ozleicester Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Capitalism can work, but it requires people to not be coonts, unfortunately the only people who go into politics are coonts, therefore capitalism doesnt work. The sooner this planet realises we are all actually earthlings..rather than english, scottish, aussie, indian, chilaen etc. The sooner we can focus on feeding everyone and not just on making sure im wearing the right shoes this summer. alternatively ... "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" In the ned, the only thing that makes any system work or fail is the people..its up to you
Guest MattP Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Capitalism can work, but it requires people to not be coonts, unfortunately the only people who go into politics are coonts, therefore capitalism doesnt work. The sooner this planet realises we are all actually earthlings..rather than english, scottish, aussie, indian, chilaen etc. The sooner we can focus on feeding everyone and not just on making sure im wearing the right shoes this summer. alternatively ... "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" In the ned, the only thing that makes any system work or fail is the people..its up to you Whilst I agree with that in a way I also think that all people are born equal but should be allowed the chance to work as hard as possible to make themselves unequal.
Guest MattP Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Reading about the occupy Wall Street protests and the imitation protests it sparked over here (such as outside St. Paul's Cathedral) it got me wondering, is capitalism really a good system for the world? The majority of the wealth owned by the minority of people, the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, seems like a poor way of managing the world. Marxism did have its practical faults, but are they really worse than the practical faults of the current system? I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what good sitting in a tent with a Tony Blair mask on shouting incoherent nonsense whilst drugged up at people going to work does to show you hate Capitalism?
James. Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Cuba is pretty messed up. It really isn't a fair or equal country. I think communism in practice, at least by Cuban standards, is very different to communism in the text books. That said one of the primary reasons Cuba suffers is the US trade embargo which Obama recently extended. It's a fascinating, challenging and inspirational country but from my limited experience there not the best advert for communism at all.
ozleicester Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Whilst I agree with that in a way I also think that all people are born equal but should be allowed the chance to work as hard as possible to make themselves unequal. Yup agreed, but... when 1/4 of the world is starving and 1/4 of the world is throwing away food.. there is a compromise and its up to us (the well fed and hard working) to help where we can. (As an aside, your comment about "being the best they can" is one that also needs to be remembered when ever the topic of salary caps etc are brought up.. the salary cap creates communist sport where all teams are equal...but not neccesarily the best)
Saxondale Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Capitalism is certainly better than communism.
Guest MattP Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Yup agreed, but... when 1/4 of the world is starving and 1/4 of the world is throwing away food.. there is a compromise and its up to us (the well fed and hard working) to help where we can. (As an aside, your comment about "being the best they can" is one that also needs to be remembered when ever the topic of salary caps etc are brought up.. the salary cap creates communist sport where all teams are equal...but not neccesarily the best) There lies the problem, communism could only work if it was a worldwide thing, and that will never happen as while communism exists someone else will use their resources to attract the better minds away from those places. The world will always be starving, it always has and always will.
ozleicester Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what good sitting in a tent with a Tony Blair mask on shouting incoherent nonsense whilst drugged up at people going to work does to show you hate Capitalism? To be honest, the alternative is to take over the streets, burn the winter palaces and create general disarray... that was tried a couple of months ago too. Im by no means poor or hard done by, but what else can many of these people do, they have had their jobs taken away, their rights squashed and their opportunities crushed, i fully support them in the protests and am still amazed that people who are trying to do good are labelled as "dogooders" like its a bad thing. The Government, particualarly in britain, has said it wont mortgage its future..instead it is mortgaging the PRESENT, yes, some of the kids will have jobs in 15 years... but what about them NOW?
ozleicester Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 There lies the problem, communism could only work if it was a worldwide thing, and that will never happen as while communism exists someone else will use their resources to attract the better minds away from those places. The world will always be starving, it always has and always will. Only if we chose it to, we could end it tomorrow.
breadandcheese Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Cuba is pretty messed up. It really isn't a fair or equal country. I think communism in practice, at least by Cuban standards, is very different to communism in the text books. That said one of the primary reasons Cuba suffers is the US trade embargo which Obama recently extended. It's a fascinating, challenging and inspirational country but from my limited experience there not the best advert for communism at all. You can take pretty much any communist example and see a country that ultimately falls into disarray, low productivity, low standard of living and the like. Capitalism has improved the standard of living hugely over the past two centuries, starting with the agricultural revolution, industrial revolution, through to modern day. The best case study to prove the point is East and West Germany. Two countries hidden behind an iron curtain, in the same part of the world, with shared cultural experiences, work ethics and history. It was always believed that the West was slightly ahead of East for quality of life and standard of living, but not by much. When the wall (and the iron curtain) finally fell, the truth was exposed and the East was a dilapidated country trailing in West Germany's wake. The standard of living was poor and the industrial productive base was decades behind West Germany. Capitalism succeeds as the best system because of creative destruction, with unproductive or old businesses/workers that fail to adapt to new upstarts, going to the wall. It is this that ensures technological progress and increased productivity, resulting in increased standards of living. Unfortunately, it is this which upsets, because it is harsh, putting those who fail to adapt into hardship. However, without creative destruction, you do not have progress.
Guest MattP Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 To be honest, the alternative is to take over the streets, burn the winter palaces and create general disarray... that was tried a couple of months ago too. Im by no means poor or hard done by, but what else can many of these people do, they have had their jobs taken away, their rights squashed and their opportunities crushed, i fully support them in the protests and am still amazed that people who are trying to do good are labelled as "dogooders" like its a bad thing. The Government, particualarly in britain, has said it wont mortgage its future..instead it is mortgaging the PRESENT, yes, some of the kids will have jobs in 15 years... but what about them NOW? But look at these people, you have seen them, they arent the recently unemployed, they are the same rent a mob that turned up at the student protests, mayday, etc they even ran a coach to it from Dale Farm last week after they had been cut off whatever they chained themselves to. If you think the riots were political I cant engage, they werent, if anything that was a capitalist riot, it was driven by greed and the need for a new pair of trainers or TV and I might get away with it, look at the ones in court, over 50% were actually in employment. As for the countries finances well, we are totally fcuked and our going to pay for this for a long time to come. Although I've long held the view that the public debt is just a side show and what we fundamentally have is a private debt crisis that came from the last government deregulating the banks to a situation where they could actually do anything they wanted to. I realised society might be in trouble about 7-8 years ago when all the local barmaids on minimum wage are walking around with Gucci hangbags purchased on credit cards. It was never going to work but the government allowed people to indulge in this fantasy as it kept them happy, and as we all know, happy people getting what they want dont ask questions.
Guest MattP Posted 31 October 2011 Posted 31 October 2011 Only if we chose it to, we could end it tomorrow. Not really? If we actually fed Africa now and provided it with medicine etc etc the population would be upto 8-9billion in 10 years? Imagine the problems then, I dont have a clue what the answer is. We could start by eradicating religion from the poorest nations, that would help far more than any food plan with the birth rate.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.