its time for me to tell the truth

i have been saying i was a communsit for some time, but i think you guys know im not

i am a capitalist(pause for murmers of shock)

and i enjoy being a part of it. although its not perfect, i enjoy it.

Be rest assured tho, if an unopressive communist country comes up, ill be first on that plane

Good to have you here.

It was inmenesely obvious that you were not communist just as it is obvious that, defacto, you can't be an environmentalist.

However, it's unlikely that you're capitalist. Just like most of the "liberals" and authoritarian right wingers you're "capitalist sympathizers". This is matter of semantics of course.

"Capitalist" is not a supporter of capitalism but rather an actual burgeoise, that is, someone with control over means of production and who has workers working for him in the production of a comodity to sell to other bougeoise and workers.

Now, as a supporter of capitalism, you must understand that capitalism is a profit-oriented system. You must understand that, as a profit oriented system, capitalism requires consumption to be not only constant but also constatly increasing. Such a system can only derive in an ever-incresing rate of natural-resources' depletion to suffice profit needs and not social needs.

Now, as a "liberal" you favour a "freer" form of capitalism, that is, unplanned capitalism. If you combine the previous profit orientation with lack of planification you get a messy and asymetrical growth in the rate of depletion.

Since capitalism in this framework is also a competitive system the growth in resources' depletion is not only asymetrical but also aymetrically increasing. An increase in the rate of depletion by enterprise X will result in its competitors Y and Z to increase their rates of depletion. X, in order to keep up with the competition will have surpass Y's and Z's rate of depletion.

What for? The more produce you have the lower your prices and the stronger competitor you become.

It becomes a never ending race to become the dominant enterprise with the greatest production and greatest array of costumers.

In order to keep your enterprise working, you need costumers to never stop existing, that is you encourage by all means possible your product's consumption, otherwise, if people stop buying from you your enterprise goes bankrrupt and that's something no capitalist would like.

In other words, natural resouces become nothing but fuel for your enterprise.

You may argue "But in the long run they can finish and the enterprises must know it". A 60 year old capitalist won't give a fuck if his enterprise is no longer sustainable in more than 40-50 years because it won't affect him. He will still profit from his business well into his advanced age and quite probably until his death. For him it's still an income source. All he worries about is his profit and besides he doesn't know for certain if what scientists say is true or not, all that he knows for certain is that he'll be rich, powerful and free so long as he has profit and that happens because people buy his product.

And, overall, moderate consumption is infefficient in a capitalist economy: it doesn't let enterprises grow. As wokers have a longstanding history of working in a certain enterprise, they expect raise in wages, prices of several goods may increase and they may not only want that but actually need that. If the enterprise doesn't grow it can't provide such thing to its workers. And of course it will report less and less income to the capitalist becoming an unattractive venture.

Money is the key to "freedom" in a capitalist society. We all want to increase our freedom. The only way to get money is profit. So we also want to increase our profit. Profit=money="freedom".

Burgeoise get profit by exploiting the workers which requires them to give them the least possible. Workers "profit" by getting the wages from the bourgeoisie and they always want to increase them. A clash of interests that generates the needs for the profit of enterprises to always grow in this sense.

There you go, the fallacy of capitalist sustainability smashed.

So, or you're enviromentalist or you're caiptalism supporter, or a capitalism's supporter that in all hypocrecy calls himself environmentalist.

what you say is partly true
i am a cpatitalistic sympethizer, but i care for the environment more. you asked to me choose a clear cut political system since green isnt one. i am a true environemntalist, i have studied the environment and biology, and do respect it, but the system i was raised with my whole life and identify with is capitalism.

i see other systems, but nothing is as good, to me, as captialims

as a politician, i am a capitalist SUPPORTER, but as a person i am a green

i am more nuetral, but with a leaning toward capitalism

Which makes you a simple hypocrite. If nature is more important for you and you understand capitalism is a hindrance to it (you already consented to the arguements I employed) then why still favoring it?

Besides, you don't know anything about communism, that's for sure so you wouldn't be able to judge between capitalism and communism.

i am a neutral
if i had to choose, it would be captialism
but i dont have to choose now do i?

why does nature go againts capitalism
who are you to decide.
why cant i pursiut greater businees ethics, and preserve nature?
is it immposible?
well then i guess im a pioneer in that field.

what keeps prices low, capitalism (except for oil, i agree)

low prices= less starving people.
which means people can focus on other things

and why is your communsim so good for my envionment eh?

hm zel too bad communsim will never exist. so far the only goverment in the world is capitalism and authorianism.(maybe socialism is you count europe)

but thats it.

still your arguments are not solidifing that your communist system helps

although i am listing to how capitalism doesnt help, i dont see any other alternative.

i dont want to go back to the greens on this forum, becuase as you said they have no political goal. and i see that capitalism snt rightfor me either

so what would you suggest??

that is when everything is taken back to caveman roots.

i rememeber i said i wanted that sometime ago, but some people said it was very stupid, namely beat and alek(or some other anarchsit)

i guess i should try that

and if you are saying i am not a real gren, then you are not a real communist(socialist).

i am not a meer american green(those damn people that think if they recycele it will help) i support and help in many cuases. have studied globl warming, mass extinction, ozone layers, and carbon layers. i belive myself to be atleast knowlegable in those areas. i am a true green. and am offeneded you think im not

well i guess it does make sense
so i cant embrace Green and be a captialist
can i still learn and be a liberal if i am a true green( and i so know roots) i know the four branches.

anyway what is latter defacto?

your logic makes sense
but you didnt asnwer if i could be a liberal?

what about authorian
ive always had the weird urge to rule a nation with an iron fist(no joke)