The inevitable collapse of capitalism

Well, in capitalism, a lot of talented ppl are already doing half-ass efforts and guess what? They become multi-millionaires!

This is true. Like I said, those who play the system can also succeed. However, this is true in socialism too.

The difference is - if you produce in capitalism, you keep it. If you produce in socialism, it gets taken away.

I am not talking about working hard. I am talking about producing goods and services that people want and need.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
It never occurs to you that the way to fight the oppressors is to beat them at their own game? Outproduce them. That will make you rich and put them into poverty.

Originally posted by mateulose
Oh god, what a moron, listen dude, I'm not in the business of hypocricy, I will not defeat a system I hate, by advancing through it, thus advocating and accepting it. That's how the capitalistic propaganda machine entrapment starts, besides, I do know for a fact that if I set my rocket boasters in the said system, I'm working at McDonald's the rest of ...[text shortened]... cons and capitalists off, it has nothing to do with laziness, I just want to disrupt the system.

Originally posted by rwingett
When Augustus was the Emperor of Rome, I'm sure he thought the Roman Empire would last forever. Likewise, when Louis XIV was the king of France, I'm sure he thought the divine right of kings was an eternal principle. But Rome fell and the French monarchy was overthrown. For someone who is fully immersed in their times it may seem as though things will con ...[text shortened]... ), but that such an anti-social system would reign supreme for all time is simply inconceivable.

true socialism has never been tried and neither has true capitalism, nor perfect aristocracy.

each time a system is used, many elements of the other methods always continue.

in the european colonial aristocracies ... there were still non ruling individuals with wealth and power, and there were entrenched social traditions they were unable to break.

in socialist russia there were rich people still wielding selfish power just for themselves.

and in todays "capitalism" GWBush still has more power than just the money he owns ... a lot more power.

Originally posted by flexmore

and in todays "capitalism" GWBush still has more power than just the money he owns ... a lot more power.[/b]

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
We know. We gave it to him. It's called "representative democracy". You see. You get two or more people with different ideas. Then you have what they call an "election". It is pretty complicated. But the winner gets to be the head ...[text shortened]... If we just tell you... you will reject the answer. Figure it out.

Originally posted by flexmore
the idea that a country collectively gives power to a central governmental figure is called .... socialism.

in socialism taken to its extreme, the government would have all power.

bush has not got all power ... but he does have a lot ... [b]you yanks are a bunch of commies.

now afghanistan, or iraq as it is at the moment ... little or no govern ...[text shortened]... do whatever they want regardless of others ... decentralised control ... the true capitalists 😀[/b]