World Republic

Uniting All People!
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log in  

Share | 
 

 A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
WeiWuWei
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 624
Join date : 2008-04-14
Age : 40

PostSubject: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:49 am

I think that discussing revolutionary praxis is great, and very important. All of us need to develop a strong grasp of the many different revolutionary theories that have come about, and this website is a great forum to do just that. However, we can’t let pure adherence to a certain ideology or another constrain our worldview, and, sometimes, it is best to analyze global events without trying to immerse ourselves in our own philosophies. With that in mind, I wrote this. Rather than refer to this as a Socialist or Communist or Anarchist or what-have-you critique of modern Capitalism, I opted, instead, to unite us all under the rather appropriate title of anti-Capitalists. The point of this is to try to apply anti-Capitalist theories to modern day crises, which I genuinely don’t see happen quite enough. I hope you enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it.

The developing world is in peril. Distraught by impoverishment, disease, famine, and death, the various less developed countries that comprise the developing world have been pushing for greater involvement in the global system – as well as greater development and outside economic aid – but, with their ever-tightening stranglehold on the various structures that comprise the international political economy, the developed world – and the United States in particular – is making it ever-increasingly difficult for them to do so. Why is this so? Why is the international world system arranged in this way? If we apply the relationship between the developed world and the developing world through the lens of anti-Capitalism, as well as through a rather basic understanding of the institutions that comprise the global economic structures of power that the developed world uses, we can give ourselves a greater insight on this situation.

Anti-Capitalism, rather broadly, basically posits that society is composed of hierarchical economic power relationships, wherein certain groups of people are exploited by another, based upon their relations to the means of production. In the classical sense, Karl Marx identifies class relations as being the primary power relationship that pervades society, and that the two groups are the proletariat – the working class – that are exploited and the bourgeoisie – the employers – that are the exploiters. This observation finds parallels within our analysis of the conflict between the developed and the developing worlds, but it doesn’t quite cover it. Marx’s understanding of these class relationships was that they existed within individual nation-states; however, our analysis is much broader, and it reflects power relationships not just of one class against another, but of one group of countries against another. Here we find closer parallels within Vladimir Lenin’s thought. Lenin theorized that Capitalist countries sustained themselves through outward expansion, in the form of Imperialism. From the perspective of many countries of the developing world, this may appear to be true; a majority of the developing world countries – such as those in parts of Southeast Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and South America – were, at one time or another, colonized by a major world power. If we undertake a relatively broad anti-Imperialist - and, hence, anti-Capitalist - viewpoint of this situation, we can reasonably assert that the more powerful countries – such as the United States, Japan, and parts of Western Europe – have created the developed world through these colonial policies, and now perpetuate the dependency that these underdeveloped countries have to them through their manipulation of the many global structures of political economy.

One such structure that the developed world employs against the developing world is the structure of intellectual property rights. Intellectual property rights are the rights that a country or private firm have over the use of an invention or a creative work, like a new piece of technology. These rights are enforced through mechanisms such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights. From the perspective of a developing country, this notion may appear elitist in nature; it presupposes that if a country or a firm develops an idea, then only it should have the rights to produce and sell the products that come from it. This creates a major problem: a majority of the developing countries are not as technologically advanced as the developed countries are, and they may not have the access to the kind of skilled labor – labor that specializes in a particular field – to create such products. So how can the Third World gain access to these new technologies? The answer is relatively simple: through trade. The developing world, when denied access to the rights to produce or create a certain product, must rely on the exports of other countries – usually those of the developed world – to supply them with that product. This finds extreme parallels within what Theotonio Dos Santos has described as a “dependency theory”. The “dependency theory” basically puts forth that LDCs are conditioned by MDCs to be perpetually underdeveloped so that they may provide a market for products produced by MDCs, which will then be used for the profit and benefit of those MDCs. This situation ensures that the LDCs will remain underdeveloped because they are incapable – due to lack of technology and other resources – of producing their own goods, and will become dependent – hence “dependency theory” – on the richer countries. When we introduce intellectual property rights to this scenario, the situation for the LDCs become bleaker. Not only are the LDCs technologically incapable of producing certain products that the MDCs make but, even if they were to develop to such a point anyway, the intellectual property rights that the MDCs hold on such products will ensure that the LDCs would have to buy products from the MDCs, and if they were to develop these products themselves the MDCs would simply turn to certain institutions to enforce their rights over those products, and stop the LDCs from producing them. In this way, even if technological advancement were to occur in the developing world, the developed world would still enforce a monopoly on the various products that the developing world is dependent on. The state of economic inequality perpetuates itself.

Another global structure that is used by the developed world to hold down the developing world is the structure of management of Third World debt – particularly the ways in which the International Monetary Fund, or the IMF, and the World Bank are involved in this structure. With regard to aiding developing countries, the roles of the IMF and the World Bank – particularly the former – are somewhat controversial. Following the postwar years under the Bretton-Woods system, the IMF primarily aided member states deal with balance-of-payment problems by providing them with liquidity. However, the IMF’s role changed during the 1980s. Rather than purely providing liquidity for member states, the IMF’s loans are now made subject to SAPs, or structural adjustment policies, which are a group of conditions to which the government that is taking out the loan – which is usually a developing country – must agree to before receiving the loan. This idea that developing countries must submit to these conditions is referred to as “conditionality”, and it is extremely controversial. Largely, the IMF – as well as most other institutions that comprise the realm of international debt – is subject to the whims of the “Washington consensus”, or, in a less foreboding sense, the interests of the United States, which are largely economically neoliberal in nature. The “Washington consensus” theory basically posits that the U.S.’s economic neoliberal perspectives are usually applied to the conditionality terms of the IMF’s loans, rather than the perspectives of the developing countries. Usually, the conditions of the IMF’s loans are currency devaluation, price stability, fiscal austerity, tariff liberalization, higher interest rates, and sound social programs. In this way, the developing countries who require these loans must curtail to the special interests and the economic and ideological perspectives that the United States – and, certainly, the numerous other wealthy countries who are members of the IMF – impose upon them. For this particular situation, if we apply our analysis on the relationship between the developed world and the developing world through a particular Marxist’s perspective, this whole notion that the developing world must follow a certain way of acting finds strong parallels between Antonio Gramsci’s theory of intellectual hegemony and the manufacturing of consent. According to Gramsci, the intellectual hegemony – the ruling, dominant class – maintains its authority through coercion and the creation of consent. Identifying the hegemon’s coercive methods is simple enough in this analysis: the developed countries use the IMF and other institutions of the international debt structure to keep the developing countries in a continual state of depravity and degradation. Showing how the hegemon creates consent is somewhat trickier, however: in our analysis of the way that the IMF functions, and how it curtails to the interests of the MDCs, we see that the IMF requires that certain conditions be fulfilled on the part of the countries who would take out loans. This is how consent is created: the economic and ideological doctrines that the MDCs espouse – namely, economic neoliberalism and its notions of free trade - are injected into the conditionality of the IMF’s loans. In this way, the developing world must adopt to the doctrines of the developed world, creating consent for their beliefs and legitimizing their interests. Capitalism asserts itself in the developing world, whether they like it or not.

A third – and, for our analysis, final – structure employed by the developed world is the trade and investment structure. For our analysis of this structure, we will pay especially close attention to the role of the WTO, or the World Trade Organization. The trade and investment structure, in the opinion of many developing countries, has been used by the wealthy developed countries as a means to exploit the developing countries for their markets, resources, and labor, among other things. The developing world views these economic liberal policies of free trade that are perpetuated by the institutions that make up the trade and investment structure to have detrimental effects upon them. An examination of how the developing world was treated during their colonial periods can shed some light on to the reasoning behind this thinking: the peripheral colonial countries relied on the international trade system to sustain themselves – due to imports, however few, from the core country – and was also used by their core country to provide it with goods and resources. These resources were then manufactured in the core country – because they were industrialized, unlike the colonies - and sold back to the colonies, leaving them impoverished. Modern-day anti-Capitalists tend to observe similar characteristics to the Imperialist policies of the past to the free trade policies of contemporary times: in their view, both methods exploit the resources of the developing world. The only difference is that the developed world employs more “soft power” methods today rather than “hard power” methods. This idea that various levels of industrialization and manufacturing, as well as a fierce manipulation of the international trade system, can be related to a perspective known as the Modern World System theory, or MWS, attributed to Immanuel Wallerstein. The MWS theory views that the relationship between the Capitalist core countries and the less developed periphery countries is intentionally intended to be skewed in the favor of the core countries. To relate this to our current analysis, we need only to look at the WTO, and why various developing countries oppose it. The WTO’s main purpose is to deal primarily with trade policy issues and disputes – and, in fact, it accounts for over 90 percent of world trade. The WTO is criticized by the developing countries for the same reason that they criticize the IMF and the World Bank: because it largely curtails to the interests of the major global powers and it enforces the economic liberal doctrines that they support. To the developing countries, these free trade policies are inherently exploitative and continue to increase the economic gap between them and the developed countries.

The developing world has many challenges ahead of itself. With an international system that was, literally, invented by the major world powers to serve the interests that they hold, understanding the developing world’s contemporary situation from an anti-Capitalist perspective seems appropriate. To them – both the developing world and to us anti-Capitalists – the world is composed of structures of power, domination, and privilege. How the developing world will advance itself is, perhaps, a far-reaching question, but what appears very clear to me, and perhaps to all of you, is that something must be done, and Capitalism must be stopped.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/groupcp.forum?g=11
Tyrlop
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1853
Join date : 2008-06-01

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:35 pm

okey i must admit this was to damn hard for me to read, i got most of the beginning.
well what issues that are up to date on capitalism, in my opinion is:
right now we can see something that I would call the nationalisation of the classes.
this means that, the working class, is getting smaller and smaller in Europe and the first world, and bigger and bigger in the 3rd world.
Do you know what 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-commerce is? if you do please post, because it would be much easier for me to explain it.
well i can also just explain it here:
1st commerce is about getting/harvesting the raw materials, like wheat, iron, gold. etc. all the basic materials.
2nd commerce is about processing those materials, converting them into products that the costumer could buy in a capitalist society.
3rd commerce is business, selling the product, service, citizen-service. this is where we sell the products,, example: banks, shops, stores, markets, insurances, transportation and welfare state is also a 3rd-commerce.

well what we can see today is that the first world has a growing 3rd commerce, and that the third world has a still growing 1st and 2nd commerce, this means a still bigger Class quakes, between the first and the second world.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 28
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:00 pm

Bravo Frank; this is why i love you.

To be clear, by 'M' and 'L' DCs you mean More and Lesser Developed Countries, yes?

Quote :
However, we can’t let pure adherence to a certain ideology or another constrain our worldview, and, sometimes, it is best to analyze global events without trying to immerse ourselves in our own philosophies.

Absolutely i agree. This is why i often leave my ideology out of political discussion with the average American; their understanding of current politics and economic practices is important; their pledging allegiance to a certain ideology is not.

Besides this, there are very few things with more authoritarian (coercive, heirarchical, dominant) potential than a powerful ideology.

That said, and i think you'd agree Frank, anti-capitalists need to see each other as allies in a common struggle, and not enemies in petty philosophical banter. If that's accomplished, that leaves us with a common goal in mind, and increases the likelihood that our strategies and tactics for opposing capitalism and the state will not contradict; they don't need to be the same strategies or tactics, but they need to be common in that they pose a threat to the coercive and dominant status-quo, and begin to build an infrastructure that will serve as outlet for revolutionary practice now and later.

I won't go into depth here about what those strategies and tactics should resemble, since it's a bit away from this topic, but i will say this, since we're talking about the developing world; condemnation of liberatory praxis in the third world, by white revolutionaries, needs to be very limited (if existant at all). As we generally come from a privileged background, we need to understand that we cannot possibly comprehend the situation that these people in the third world live in. It is up to them to determine the conditions of their own liberation; it is up to us to do what we can to oppose the war machine from within, and to support the liberation of the third world.

Thanks for the wonderful post Wei.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Liche
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4613
Join date : 2008-01-30
Age : 23
Location : USA-Virginia

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:33 am

Nice!

haha I was like...LCD? and tooke me a while to realize what you meant. Maybe make a legend for your posts? like a map. or just be more clearer. Very good job, got my mind off the fact Im craving cigarettes.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.epol.forumotion.com
mattabesta
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 3936
Join date : 2007-12-23
Age : 22
Location : Iceland

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:39 am

what you are presenting is Anti-american not anti-capitalist.
I agree with most of what you say with a few basic exeptions.
the reason the UDW is so poor is especally related to traffis, the UDW is forced to keep export traffis low so that littel or none of the raw materials are worked in the country on the othere hand MDW keep traffis high on imports making there industry more competitive. one thing that is cousing the most damge is farmer subsidies, they keep food prices artifically low, even as production cost rises the price of the good dose not becuse rich counryes support farmers by downpaying exports. This means that the farmer in africa gets less for his grain making him poorer and his whole country with him.
what we need is that the US makes a long term approce that is realistic, it's subsidy of aging industry is not doing it any good it ahould let the market take control, the market only cares about profitabiluty and right now if we would abolish traffis and support of dying industrys then africa would get much richer.
the argument that free-trade is bad and the africa is still getting poorer is just falt out wrong, here is a wolfram graph of african GDP:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=africa+gdp
current estimates put african gdp at 1.7T-2T$
this bomm is largly coused by oil boom and incrased political stability leading to more investment, the best example is angola who's GDP grew by 15% in one year and real PPP rew by 30% this is due to incred oil and miniral production and proper taxing of those areas by the goverment.
the IMF's policy during the 1990's was naive and shallow economic reform and privatization on there own will do nothing, africa needs better infrastructure, education and healthcare, not just flat out privatization.
The main thing africa needs is political stability and that reqiers the world to respect democracy and only intervene if there is foul-play.
if an anti-us socalist gets elected the us shuld think of ways to improve realtion not how to kill him.
hopefully the IMF and world bank will change there policy as debt collectors and start doing what they are supposed to be, lenders to all. one reason we can be hopefull about the future is that the IMF now ahs a socalist as it's head and the IMF is stetting less conditions for lending in the current crisis.

EDIT: I made nice paragraphs n shit but the forum dosn't like them Crying or Very sad
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://Pichunter.com
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 28
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:47 pm

mattabesta wrote:
what you are presenting is Anti-american not anti-capitalist.
Please substantiate; unless we're to just take your word for it.

Quote :
I agree with most of what you say with a few basic exeptions.
the reason the UDW is so poor is especally related to traffis, the UDW is forced to keep export traffis low so that littel or none of the raw materials are worked in the country on the othere hand MDW keep traffis high on imports making there industry more competitive. one thing that is cousing the most damge is farmer subsidies, they keep food prices artifically low, even as production cost rises the price of the good dose not becuse rich counryes support farmers by downpaying exports. This means that the farmer in africa gets less for his grain making him poorer and his whole country with him.
And how is this not an effect of the capitalist mode of production?

Quote :
what we need is that the US makes a long term approce that is realistic, it's subsidy of aging industry is not doing it any good...
And why would the US do that?

Quote :
...it ahould let the market take control, the market only cares about profitabiluty...
How is the centralized government not an extention of market interests? It is because this system is floundering in crisis that Obama is going to enact keynsianist policies to try and revitalize it for another cycle.

Quote :
...and right now if we would abolish traffis and support of dying industrys then africa would get much richer.
Africa's private sector would get richer.

Quote :
the argument that free-trade is bad and the africa is still getting poorer is just falt out wrong, here is a wolfram graph of african GDP:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=africa+gdp
The argument that 'free-trade' isn't an idiom is wrong.

As far as Africa is concerned, just because their estimated GDP is high, doesn't mean their people will benefit from it.

Quote :
this bomm is largly coused by oil boom and incrased political stability leading to more investment, the best example is angola who's GDP grew by 15% in one year and real PPP rew by 30% this is due to incred oil and miniral production and proper taxing of those areas by the goverment.
You know how the private sector benefitted from oil; So naturally you also know what the consequence was for many people living in oil rich areas of Africa, like Nigeria for instance.

Quote :
the IMF's policy during the 1990's was naive...
Then naturally capitalism allows for such naivete.

Quote :
...and shallow economic reform and privatization on there own will do nothing, africa needs better infrastructure, education and healthcare, not just flat out privatization.
A People Uprooted, volume one in the Afro-American History Series from encyclopedia britannica; The World and Africa by W.E. DuBois; How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney; I suggest you read and add some depth to your conception of capitalisms effect on Africa.

Quote :
The main thing africa needs is political stability and that reqiers the world to respect democracy and only intervene if there is foul-play.
more idioms, eh? capitalism is direct disrespect of democracy (even Michael Moore thinks so Razz ). Further, there is a reason people are inept in their ability to stop the war machine: There is no democracy.

Of course if by democracy you mean state politics of class repression, then i don't see how that is going to help stop imperialist intervention.

Quote :
if an anti-us socalist gets elected the us shuld think of ways to improve realtion not how to kill him.
I thought the first principle of capitalism was competition?

Quote :
hopefully the IMF and world bank will change there policy as debt collectors and start doing what they are supposed to be, lenders to all.
So the IMF should add to debt, but not collect on it?

Quote :
one reason we can be hopefull about the future is that the IMF now ahs a socalist as it's head and the IMF is stetting less conditions for lending in the current crisis.
No self-respecting socialist would work within the IMF unless the goal was sabotage. I see no reason to be hopeful about this.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
WeiWuWei
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 624
Join date : 2008-04-14
Age : 40

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:15 pm

Black_Cross wrote:
Bravo Frank; this is why i love you.

Love you too, brah. I love you I love you

Black_Cross wrote:
To be clear, by 'M' and 'L' DCs you mean More and Lesser Developed Countries, yes?

Yes, MDCs and LDCs are more and less developed countries.

Black_Cross wrote:
Absolutely i agree. This is why i often leave my ideology out of political discussion with the average American; their understanding of current politics and economic practices is important; their pledging allegiance to a certain ideology is not.

Besides this, there are very few things with more authoritarian (coercive, heirarchical, dominant) potential than a powerful ideology.

That is really interesting, and it shares a lot of common ground with the spiel I threw in there about Gramsci. People are controlled physically, yes, but I think that even more people are controlled mentally, by ideas. Capitalism is able to persist not just through force, but through propaganda. In this way, the State doesn't have to dirty its hands by beating the bludgeon down on people; it can just get by on convincing them that it and its economic doctrines are legitimate.

I didn't quote anything else from your post because I literally agree with everything else that you said. I completely agree with you: it is the duty of citizens of the hegemonic powers to support the struggles of oppressed peoples elsewhere, either through actual action or simply through empathy or solidarity.

Also, matta, I did not reply to you only because I think that BC handled my rebuttal perfectly. But I did read your post.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/groupcp.forum?g=11
mattabesta
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 3936
Join date : 2007-12-23
Age : 22
Location : Iceland

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:24 am

Black_Cross wrote:


And how is this not an effect of the capitalist mode of production?
traffis are a government tool for controlling production and consumption something capitalism argues against.

Quote :
And why would the US do that?
becuse the us wants to become richer and have better lifes for all?
all would benfit most especally the super-rich wich are ironically the ones preventing it


Quote :

How is the centralized government not an extention of market interests? It is because
this system is floundering in crisis that Obama is going to enact Keynesian policies to try and revitalize it for another cycle.

Keynesian policies are interventionalist not to mention highly socialistic as they aim to increwase public debt wich eventually evryone has to pay not just the ones that failed. Keynesian policies are debatable but it'S not a capitalism that's for sure, goverment intervention is NOT capitalistic no matter how much it benifits bankers.


Quote :
Africa's private sector would get richer.
not really the forgen sector would get richer but they would invest becuse there is no way they can make money in africa at the current rateand they are investing.



Quote :

The argument that 'free-trade' isn't an idiom is wrong.

As far as Africa is concerned, just because their estimated GDP is high, doesn't mean their people will benefit from it.
true GDP dosn't mean that HDI or ppl's happiness increases but it is helpfull.
HDI and poverty still have a long way to go but the general trend is down since 1995 or so. 1st one shows your point GDP dose not mean good life.

2nd one shows HDI, afrfica is clearly rising.

3rd one shows poverty rate:


Quote :
You know how the private sector benefitted from oil; So naturally you
also know what the consequence was for many people living in oil rich
areas of Africa, like Nigeria for instance.
so true the government should properly tax the oil sector and root out corruption.


Quote :
Then naturally capitalism allows for such naivete.
?????? KGB killed ppl naturally communism kills


Quote :
A People Uprooted, volume one in the Afro-American History Series from encyclopedia britannica; The World and Africa by W.E. DuBois; How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney; I suggest you read and add some depth to your conception of capitalisms effect on Africa.
thank you for those suggestions the 3rd one might be a tad outdated .

Quote :
more idioms, eh? capitalism is direct disrespect of democracy (even Michael Moore thinks so ). Further, there is a reason people are inept in their ability to stop the war machine: There is no democracy.
Of course if by democracy you mean state politics of class
repression, then i don't see how that is going to help stop imperialist
intervention.
capitalism undemocratic? now a Plutocracy is not good but capitalism isn't a political system it's economic it dosn't concern democracy you can run capitalism fine without a state or with a dictatorship. capitalism is simply that the goverment GTFO of our econamis.


Quote :
I thought the first principle of capitalism was competition?
it is between companies not nations.


Quote :
So the IMF should add to debt, but not collect on it?
yes it is the purpose to lend, it's a fund after all.


Quote :

No self-respecting socialist would work within the IMF unless the goal was sabotage. I see no reason to be hopeful about this.

okey don't smile I don't give a shit, have a nice day(or not your choice)
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://Pichunter.com
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 28
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:52 pm

mattabesta wrote:
traffis are a government tool for controlling production and consumption something capitalism argues against.

Perhaps in theory, but it has no efficacy in reality.

Quote :
becuse the us wants to become richer and have better lifes for all?
all would benfit most especally the super-rich wich are ironically the ones preventing it

There must be some reason that the bourgoisie disagrees with your assertion.

Quote :
Keynesian policies are interventionalist...

To save capitalism

Quote :
...not to mention highly socialistic as they aim to increwase public debt wich eventually evryone has to pay not just the ones that failed.

Socialist programs seek to abolish debt and the capitalist system, not to collectivize one and save the other. There is nothing socialist about Keynesianism.

Quote :
Keynesian policies are debatable but it'S not a capitalism that's for sure, goverment intervention is NOT capitalistic no matter how much it benifits bankers.

The government bails out the capitalist class as well as the bankers.

This also glazes over the fact that the centralized government has always been the strong-arm of the capitalist class. Look at any countries history of transformation into a capitalist mode of production and you'll see that the government and private interests work together to drag the country, usually kicking and screaming, into capitalism.

Quote :
not really the forgen sector would get richer but they would invest becuse there is no way they can make money in africa at the current rateand they are investing.

Foreign? So why should they profit from Africa's resources?

Quote :
true GDP dosn't mean that HDI or ppl's happiness increases but it is helpfull.
HDI and poverty still have a long way to go but the general trend is down since 1995 or so. 1st one shows your point GDP dose not mean good life.

2nd one shows HDI, afrfica is clearly rising.

3rd one shows poverty rate:

And these paltry advances make up for the long history of violence, oppression and outside intervention that African's have had to endure at the hand of imperialism?

And next you'll tell me that Korea should thank Japan for all the time and money that they used for the advancement of the Korean economy.

Quote :
so true the government should properly tax the oil sector and root out corruption.

Not according to many Nigerians

Quote :
Quote :
Then naturally capitalism allows for such naivete.
?????? KGB killed ppl naturally communism kills

Straw man fallacy. Given the capitalist mode of production that prevailed in Russia, this is not a parallel (even if the production were more socialized, it is still not an apt analogy).

The IMF can only exist and function within the context of capitalist production; that is why my statement is correct.

Quote :
thank you for those suggestions the 3rd one might be a tad outdated .

Not if we consider Africa's condition as the precipitate of its historical progression.

Quote :
capitalism undemocratic?

Inherently

Quote :
now a Plutocracy is not good but capitalism isn't a political system it's economic it dosn't concern democracy you can run capitalism fine without a state or with a dictatorship. capitalism is simply that the goverment GTFO of our econamis.

w/o government the bourgeoisie would itself take up the duties of governing a society. It would essentially constitute a new state (one that doesn't even have elected representatives but savvy businessmen or primogenitors).

And as far as the economy goes, it is an integral part of government of society. If the economy is run by isolated individuals whose only goal is to valorize capital, they will have control over the land and resources of the society in which they operate, whether or not they use them in a manner that reflects the will of their community (democracy).

Quote :
it is between companies not nations.

Companies compete between nations, no? Doesn't this constitute a dichotomy on the interests of nations? This means that nations would be competing, and this would inevitably strain relations.

Quote :
yes it is the purpose to lend, it's a fund after all.

What capitalist in his right mind would lend without being ensured interest?

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mattabesta
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 3936
Join date : 2007-12-23
Age : 22
Location : Iceland

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:48 am

Black_Cross wrote:
Perhaps in theory, but it has no efficacy in reality.
so traffis are useless we should just drop them? I always thought that the merchant nations of old lived off traffis and that the us's income was traffis at a majority, silly me.



Quote :

There must be some reason that the bourgoisie disagrees with your assertion.
they don't, only the ones interested in keeping there business.
Quote :
To save capitalism

from what ? there have been countless recessions in the 20th and 19th centuries with no government intervention and yet capitalism survived.
also save capitalism by reverting to a different system ???

Quote :

Socialist programs seek to abolish debt and the capitalist system,
not to collectivize one and save the other. There is nothing socialist
about Keynesianism.
doesn't matter what socialist systems aim or do, Keynesian system makes us all pay for the failures of few.

Quote :


The government bails out the capitalist class as well as the bankers.

This also glazes over the fact
that the centralized government has always been the strong-arm of the
capitalist class. Look at any countries history of transformation into
a capitalist mode of production and you'll see that the government and
private interests work together to drag the country, usually kicking
and screaming, into capitalism.

yes china was FORCED by evil US capitalists to stop starving it's ppl and let them buy cars, EVIL!

Quote :

Foreign? So why should they profit from Africa's resources?

because they own companies in Africa?

Quote :

And these paltry advances make up for the long history of violence,
oppression and outside intervention that African's have had to endure
at the hand of imperialism?

yes africa was rich, peacfull and had proper infrastructure as well as inventing all modern inventions before the Europeans came andplundered the gold and destroyed the African commune.

Quote :
Not according to many Nigerians

Nigerians want corruption and no income from oil?

Quote :

Straw man fallacy. Given the capitalist mode of production that
prevailed in Russia, this is not a parallel (even if the production
were more socialized, it is still not an apt analogy).

The IMF can only exist and function within the context of capitalist production; that is why my statement is correct.

IMF is International Monetary fund that's very capitalistic controling cunsumtion, debit and the way econamis behave is VERY capitalistic.

Quote :

Not if we consider Africa's condition as the precipitate of its historical progression.
africa has changed in the last 35 years most often to the better.

Quote :
Inherently

capitalism is not political it reqiers that politics do not interven in the econamy

Quote :

w/o government the bourgeoisie would itself take up the duties of
governing a society. It would essentially constitute a new state (one
that doesn't even have elected representatives but savvy businessmen or
primogenitors).

And as far as the economy goes, it is an
integral part of government of society. If the economy is run by
isolated individuals whose only goal is to valorize capital, they will
have control over the land and resources of the society in which they
operate, whether or not they use them in a manner that reflects the
will of their community (democracy).

now democarcy dose not mean that when the majoraty wants the majoraty gets democracy is fair, my land is my land your land is your land, no matter what the ppl say it is so, if i kill a man it is illigal no matter who i killed or wethere the majoraty wants or not. if the econamy is controled by corparations in a c capitalist system it shoun't be a problem if you don't liek them invent a new way of doing buisness and go into competition.

Quote :


Companies compete between nations, no? Doesn't this constitute
a dichotomy on the interests of nations? This means that nations would
be competing, and this would inevitably strain relations.

well yeah in a system wich tryes to control the economy, wich is not capitalism.

Quote :


What capitalist in his right mind would lend without being ensured interest?

they do take intrest just a lot lower. the purpus is often that the goverment can pay the bils now and slowly ease the pain over the years so the hit for the econamy is less.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://Pichunter.com
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 28
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:32 pm

mattabesta wrote:
so traffis are useless we should just drop them?

Capitalism is useless; we should drop it.

Quote :
I always thought that the merchant nations of old lived off traffis and that the us's income was traffis at a majority, silly me.

Why would i care about the income of the US? The sooner this charade economy crumbles, the sooner we can do away with bourgeois and white-skin privilege.

And you seem to have misunderstood me since your response was off-target. My point was that capitalist theory may argue against tariffs, but this theory (which must be idealist) does not produce the intended effect. I'd also contend that it never can/will.

Quote :
they don't, only the ones interested in keeping there business.

And again we come to a problem with capitalist power relations. Capitalism produces this self-preservation mentality of the state and the bourgeoisie. If these capitalists have so much power (which is inherent in their position as capitalists), why wouldn't they exercise it to keep their business (failing or not) alive? Capitalists don't give a rats ass about the economy or even the ideology that is capitalism; they are only concerned with their own greedy agenda.

Quote :
from what ?

Capitalists and speculators.

Quote :
there have been countless recessions in the 20th and 19th centuries with no government intervention and yet capitalism survived.

This isn't just a recession; i beleive the term being tossed around is global crisis.

I also doubt that there is ever a recession (or even a time of prosperity) when the government plays no role in the market.

Quote :
also save capitalism by reverting to a different system ???

At best it's a different kind of capitalism. Capitalism is delimited by the economic and socio-political relations it creates. If there is a working class (a class that produces without ownership of the means by which they produce) and a capitalist class (a class that doesn't take part in production [labor] but owns the means to produce), capitalism exists. With this there is always the state (an institution for the supression of one class for another) because without it the system would crumble.

Your idealist conception of capitalism doesn't exist (and never will) for a reason.

Quote :
doesn't matter what socialist systems aim or do, Keynesian system makes us all pay for the failures of few.

I never argued against this. My only agrument was that Keynesianism isn't socialist.

Quote :
yes china was FORCED by evil US capitalists to stop starving it's ppl and let them buy cars, EVIL!

That's quite a hard left turn you took there. I assume you changed the subject because you don't have an actual counter-argument.

Quote :
because they own companies in Africa?

With the consent of the African people no doubt...

Quote :
yes africa was rich, peacfull and had proper infrastructure as well as inventing all modern inventions before the Europeans came andplundered the gold and destroyed the African commune.

Facetious sarcasm aside, do you have an actual argument?

Quote :
Nigerians want corruption and no income from oil?

From what i've read, they just want their land and their culture in tact.

And you can fuck off if you honestly believe the oil industry didn't bring with it corruption. Giant military state apparatus for repressing rebellion against a superimposed oil industry upon land where Ogharefe and Ekpan women had once tended to farms; the deaths of over one million for the sake of capital and siphoning resources from Nigerian lands; not to mention the pollution this industry brought with it.

Quote :
IMF is International Monetary fund that's very capitalistic controling cunsumtion, debit and the way econamis behave is VERY capitalistic.

I'm glad you agree.

Capitalism has proven itself quite able to function internationally. Large industrial centers naturally expand outwards to get cheap labor and resources, and open up new markets for subsidized agribusiness. I assure you it's quite natural. Any other conception of the capitalist mode of production and the power relations it creates has no place in reality.

Quote :
africa has changed in the last 35 years

I wouldn't deny it. That doesn't, however, mean that its past didn't play a part in shaping its present conditions.

Quote :
most often to the better.

That is hardly for you to decide.

Quote :
capitalism is not political it reqiers that politics do not interven in the econamy

Idealist. Not gonna happen.

Quote :
now democarcy dose not mean that when the majoraty wants the majoraty gets...

I don't recall defining it as such.

Quote :
...democracy is fair, my land is my land your land is your land,...


According to whom? You can't just go around redefining words to suit your agenda. Democracy already has an etymological definition, and it has nothing to do with private property.

Quote :
...no matter what the ppl say it is so,...

What? You don't see the irony here?

Quote :
if i kill a man it is illigal no matter who i killed or wethere the majoraty wants or not.

Again your agenda is pretty obvious. Legality has nothing to do with democracy, no matter whether your delusions convince you otherwise.

Quote :
if the econamy is controled by corparations in a c capitalist system it shoun't be a problem if you don't liek them invent a new way of doing buisness and go into competition.

Expropriation -> Collectivization; our "new way of doing business".

Quote :
well yeah in a system wich tryes to control the economy, wich is not capitalism.

That is nonsense. Capitalism is a system of unilateral control of the economy.

Quote :
they do take intrest just a lot lower. the purpus is often that the goverment can pay the bils now and slowly ease the pain over the years so the hit for the econamy is less.

You just said the IMF shouldn't collect... If they don't collect, they don't get their interest.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:51 pm

Gorgeous thread Wei. Really, congratulations. This thread is so loveable that it deserves not only necrophilia but actually necromancy!

To add up to what my comrades have said:

One of the reasons for which developed capitalist nations actually require to recurr to Imperialism is to export the burden of exploitation.

Once exploitation becomes unbearable to the domestic working class, this discontent represents a tangible threat to the ruling class. Once armed repression becomes completely insufficient, the only viable resource to mitigate this discontent is to actually be able to exploit foreign workforces to "subsidize" domestic workforces thus increasing their living standards without diminishing the power held by the domestic ruling class.

Military campaings like Hitler's within Europe are a clear example of a cynical version of this paradigm:
The German Nazi party envisioned a Germany that would lead over all of Europe having the whole Europe working for Germany. That way German workers would not mess with the ruling German elite as they'd be satsfied with their material conditions and not only that, this satisfaction, aside from creating consent would actually serve to incite Germans into defending this status by all means, including of course military.

In order to do this, they sought to subdue the remainder of Europe militarily just to face a massive failure.

Today, military campaings are of much lesser scales and are often left in the hands of domestic foreign ruling classes with indirect and seldom direct support from the interested Imperialist country.

The whole Cold War was about that.

This being mentioned I would also like to mention why there was such an antagonism between Western Capitalist powers and the USSR's bloc aside from simply battling over who would rule the world.

One thing that distinguished the USSR from its western counterparts is that the USSR's efforts in developing countries actually lead to the creation of more autonomous domestic ruling classes within those countries and thus more autonomous countries. USSR and its allies, unlike their NATO counterparts did not seek to exploit the working classes of the developing nations, rather they sought to create strong national ruling classes and patritic peoples seeking for self-determination to serve as resistance focuses to Western imperialism which implied a hindrance to neoliberalism.

USSR and its allies, unlike its western counterparts did not engage in cultural hegemony over the developing nations where they intervened, quite the opposite as their interventions often resulted in the strengthening of national and cultural identities within said nations, characteristics that would definitely hamper neoliberalist moves.

All in all, USSR's strategy, instead of being that of dominating developing cuntries was more of sabotaging western imperialism as it was the most efficient way through which capitalist powerhouses could be weakened for their power and stability comes from the exploitation of developing nations.

Russia's current actions resemble a bit those of USSR and it's of no surprise. Russia's ruling class is pretty satisfied with exploiting merely the Russian working class and the remainder of the powers represent both threats and competitors to Russia. Russia's actions such as assisting "rogue nations" like Venezuela and Iran to develop their national industries and technology are ways though which Russia does not only gain allies around the world (and so strategic positions) but also through which Russia hampers the growth of its more Neoliberal competitors.

A good example is the establishment of a gold-extraction company in Venezuela. The project was initially to be carried out by Canadian companies and would be mostly owned by these canadian companies. Chavez took the project from the Canadians and instead chose Russia as a partner. The result was the establishment of "Rusoro" a company owned in a 50/50 fashion by both the Russian and Venezuelan states. One of the most recent examples of Russia's policy of "multipolarity" or what I would call "resistance imperialism". Similar situations are happening specially in the case of military products where Russia has established several joint ventures with India.

Also, and this is of a greater relevance to the original topic, as I live in a 3rd world country and have frequently interacted with the Mexican working class I have been able to draw conclusions about the situation here.

After the NAFTA was signed, a massive amount of Mexican farmers lost their possibility to sell their produce as they had to compete with imports from the USA, a competition they could in no way win.

Not only were American imported agricultural products cheaper, lots of distribution centers here were eventually bought by American corporations which exclusively imported American products - they wouldn't buy anything from domestic agricultural producers.

This, as a side note, made several farmers have to recur to the production of drug crops to attain economic subsistance. That or, yup, cross the border and go to work in the USA.

Lots of American companies started displacing and buying domestic ones.

Long story short, Mexico became extremely dependant on the USA. More than ever.

By comparison, in the 40s and until the 70s Mexico had such a development level that were were actually three important Mexican brands of cars and massive amounts of consumer goods were made in Mexico by Mexican companies.

Today, we don't only have a massive presence of American and Canadian goods and companies, the situation has gone to such a level in which several words in Spanish are being replaced by words in English. Mexican television companies, aside from having dumbed down its content have made increasing attempts at promoting "United States' culture" and making American entrepeneurs role models.

At several schools subjects such as greek and latin etymologies, literature, universal and mexican history have been substituted with subjects like management, marketing, entrepeneurship, accounting and finances. There've been attempts by he government, with limited success, at abolishing the study of precolumbian Mexican history and making the study of colonial Mexico's history teaching as brief as possible.

There's also been an increase in the difussion of religious messages within the media and criticism against secularism has been increasing in the past years.

And... what do the workers think? What do they say? Many say things like "Yeah, it's true that we're fucked. But who's gonna do something?". The conditions of the Mexican working class are quite precarious. Not only do they lack time for even thinking about themselves and lack access to knowledge, they're literally busy surviving in the city sometimes even hundreds of miles away from their homes and sometimes staying to sleep at their workplaces (I've witnessed it as this has been the case in a couple of my uncle's constructions) and working sometimes up to 12 hours a day 6 days a week eating nothing but a bunch of tortillas and some beans just so they can send a slight amount of money to their families, so their children can go to flawed schools and be taught lies, and be taught how to better serve the ruling class.

However I do think that there's a pretty good chance of getting the people to arise. And I'm currently working on some plans I will apply both in Russia and here and which shall currently remain in secrecy.

One of them though, is definitely the creation of an anti-Capitalist front in which I've even managed to include some former fascists who have "realized who the real enemy is".

Again, wonderful post Wei. And sorry if my reply doesn't seem so well thought and is not quite properly expressed or much of a contribution. I just couldn't remain silent at such a good contribution by a comrade.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Liche
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4613
Join date : 2008-01-30
Age : 23
Location : USA-Virginia

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:49 pm

Very nice WWW, I expect that you will some day be a great author, and hopefully writing laws Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.epol.forumotion.com
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:01 pm

Liche wrote:
Very nice WWW, I expect that you will some day be a great author, and hopefully writing laws Smile

I don't think Wei is of the kind of people that would like writting laws.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Liche
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4613
Join date : 2008-01-30
Age : 23
Location : USA-Virginia

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:20 am

If he dosen't, some CEO who only wears 5 million dollar Italian three piece suits, drives a Rolls Royce with gold spinners, and lives on an Island off the coast of Africa with native slaves will.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.epol.forumotion.com
mattabesta
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 3936
Join date : 2007-12-23
Age : 22
Location : Iceland

PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:30 am

Black_Cross wrote:

Capitalism is useless; we should drop it.
not an argument, answer my question.
Quote :

Why would i care about the income of the US? The sooner this charade economy
crumbles, the sooner we can do away with bourgeois and white-skin privilege.

And you seem to have misunderstood me since your response was off-target. My
point was that capitalist theory may argue against tariffs, but this theory
(which must be idealist) does not produce the intended effect. I'd also contend
that it never can/will.
but it has, just look at the EU you have been proven wrong for several decades
now.

also I have the math behind it which unlike marx's formula actually has any MATH.

oh and you should care because it as a point in my argument.

Quote :


This isn't just a recession; i beleive the term being tossed around is global
crisis.

I also doubt that there is ever a recession (or even a time of prosperity) when
the government plays no role in the market.

why not? a spree of inventions or increased stability can produce increased
investment which can be just as easily misdirected and then that bubble bursts,
recession, no need for government there.

Quote :


And again we come to a problem with capitalist power relations. Capitalism
produces this self-preservation mentality of the state and the bourgeoisie. If
these capitalists have so much power (which is inherent in their position as
capitalists), why wouldn't they exercise it to keep their business (failing or
not) alive? Capitalists don't give a rats ass about the economy or even the
ideology that is capitalism; they are only concerned with their own greedy
agenda.

exacly which is why we have institutions that make sure that the corporations don’t
influence the state. Companies power is only vested in there importance to the
economy and the state in order to strip them off power the government needs to
stay away from even considering to save companies and banks.

Quote :


Capitalists and speculators.

Yes futures are very dangerous I presume you know how they work?
Quote :


At best it's a different kind of capitalism. Capitalism is delimited by the
economic and socio-political relations it creates. If there is a working class
(a class that produces without ownership of the means by which they produce)
and a capitalist class (a class that doesn't take part in production [labor]
but owns the means to produce), capitalism exists. With this there is always
the state (an institution for the suppression of one class for another) because
without it the system would crumble.

Your idealist conception of capitalism doesn't exist (and never will) for a
reason.




And yoursimple view of the world is childish, capital dose not stay in place like a
rock retard classes are at best classified by income, in reality everyone
controls there own means of production, my value lies in my body as long as I’m
not a slave, it’s mine, other things might be my brain, or my experience in the field.

Capitalist
are not rich ppl, ppl can be rich
without being capitalistic, owning a company doesn’t make you an enslaver it
just makes you normal, getting rich by doing something doesn’t make you an
enslaver either nor a bad person, profiting by selling and buying is not wrong,
the profits are not things rich ppl steal or take from anyone they CREATE it by
efficiently deploying capital in the RIGHT places, those who don’t go bankrupt,
but that’s ok because there just someone, now if the state dose something wrong
we’re FUCKED.


Capitalism
is defined by the right of ownership and the states non-intervention in peoples lives.

Quote :

I never argued against this. My only argument was that Keynesianism isn't
socialist
Oh so we
agree Keynesian economics is a bunch of populist crap.
Quote :

That's quite a hard left turn you took there. I assume you changed the subject
because you don't have an actual counter-argument.
Sorry can’t
remember what the subject was, tell me again(no sarcasm)
Quote :


With the consent of the African people no doubt...


Doesn’t
matter what they think about it, ppl
should be allowed to do business freely.
if we had to ask the ppl for evry investment in there neighborhood it would be overwhelming.


Quote :

Facetious sarcasm aside, do you have an actual argument?

Yes Africa
is fucking poor and has been so for 10,000 years.

Only
prosperous time was Egypt in Hellenic times and the earlier dynasties.
Quote :


From what i've read, they just want their land and their culture in tact.

And you can fuck off if you honestly believe the oil industry didn't bring with
it corruption. Giant military state apparatus for repressing rebellion against
a superimposed oil industry upon land where Ogharefe and Ekpan women had once
tended to farms; the deaths of over one million for the sake of capital and
siphoning resources from Nigerian lands; not to mention the pollution this
industry brought with it.
I’m not saying
that the military government was good and it’s involvement in the oil industry
was good.

also the oil pirates are the rebels which are a minority freedom fighters and majority criminals and thugs joining in on the action.
Quote :


I wouldn't deny it. That doesn't, however, mean that its past didn't play a
part in shaping its present conditions.


Exactly
socialism and Millitarism in Africa are largely to blame.
Quote :

That is hardly for you to decide.
No I rely
on statistics, you probably never seen any.
Quote :

Idealist. Not gonna happen.
Indeed
given the infinite stupidity of man it probably won’t happen but that doesn’t mean I won’t try to edge the
world there.
Quote :

According to whom? You can't just go around redefining words to suit your
agenda. Democracy already has an etymological definition, and it has nothing to
do with private property.
I didn’t,
you took my words out of context.
Quote :

What? You don't see the irony here?
Words are
not defined by context not it’s literal meaning, democracy today means a fair
rule, and I don’t want your opinion on whether or not it’s fair, really I won’t
reply you can make a new thread if you want.
Quote :

Again your agenda is pretty obvious. Legality has nothing to do with democracy,
no matter whether your delusions convince you otherwise.
It kinda
fucking dose.
Quote :

Expropriation -> Collectivization; our "new way of doing
business".
I love
sarcasm too.
Quote :

That is nonsense. Capitalism is a system of unilateral control of the
economy.
By people,
that most likely don’t give a carp about what nation they’re in, nor should the government,
only companies that are really creating any tension between states is when a
state owned company is involved.
Quote :

You just said the IMF shouldn't collect... If they don't collect, they don't
get their interest.

They collect LATER it’s
called Quantitative easing.

Quote :

I'm glad you agree.

Capitalism has proven itself quite able to function internationally. Large
industrial centers naturally expand outwards to get cheap labor and resources,
and open up new markets for subsidized agribusiness. I assure you it's quite
natural. Any other conception of the capitalist mode of production and the
power relations it creates has no place in reality.

holy shit Either you just took sarcasm too a new level or I reached a black hole of intelligence.

I just thought of an awesome comeback for you.
you get 1,000,000,000 internets if you get it right.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://Pichunter.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions   Today at 3:00 am

Back to top Go down
 
A Basic Criticism of Capitalist International Institutions
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Road to Miss Grand International 2014- Official Thread- COMPLETE COVERAGE- CUBA WON!!
» Road to Manhunt International 2014
» Miss Atlantic International 2014 - SPAIN WON!
» Road to Miss Grand International 2015- Dominican Rep. Won!!
» Parul Shah- PHILIPPINES GRAND INTERNATIONAL 2015

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
World Republic :: Capitol of the World Republic :: Red Square-
Jump to: