The world's smallest cinema

[Nadval]

In Nottingham - yer I was surprised too... The screen was about 50" by 20" with about 10 seats and funnily enough used to be a public toilet.

Went to see a film called 'The Corporation', had a bunch of people like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky in - but that wasn't the part I liked. As you no doubt had guessed, this wasn't a pro-capitalism film. It was basically telling me everything I knew about how the current form of capitalism is unsustainable, undemocratic, immoral and has indoctrinated most people in western civilisation to an extent that can be compared to that in Soviet Russia. What I liked was that it threw examples and facts at the audience, most of which I've never seen on any news broadcasting program or in any newspaper, and had interviews with major corporate executives backing up all the claims. Of course capitalism defends itself (not to mention the film was rather long and difficult to sit through so little money can be made from it) so don't expect to see this in any major cinemas, but if you see it on anywhere I certainly recommend it. It's eye opening even for someone who was already against capitalism, even if a little depressing.

*edit* I await the criticisms from pro-capitalists, despite the fact they haven't yet seen it After watching the bit about brainwashing it's easy to predict.

[Ste]

Where was the cinema?
I wanna go!

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Ste

Where was the cinema?
I wanna go!

'Screen room' in Hockley, not sure if it's still showing there though.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Nadval

In Nottingham - yer I was surprised too... The screen was about 50" by 20" with about 10 seats and funnily enough used to be a public toilet.

Went to see a film called 'The Corporation', had a bunch of people like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky in - but that wasn't the part I liked. As you no doubt had guessed, this wasn't a pro-capitalism film. It was basically telling me everything I knew about how the current form of capitalism is unsustainable, undemocratic, immoral and has indoctrinated most people in western civilisation to an extent that can be compared to that in Soviet Russia. What I liked was that it threw examples and facts at the audience, most of which I've never seen on any news broadcasting program or in any newspaper, and had interviews with major corporate executives backing up all the claims. Of course capitalism defends itself (not to mention the film was rather long and difficult to sit through so little money can be made from it) so don't expect to see this in any major cinemas, but if you see it on anywhere I certainly recommend it. It's eye opening even for someone who was already against capitalism, even if a little depressing.

*edit* I await the criticisms from pro-capitalists, despite the fact they haven't yet seen it After watching the bit about brainwashing it's easy to predict.

was it informative and representative of the facts in the same way as the two Michael Moore films?

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Phang

was it informative and representative of the facts in the same way as the two Michael Moore films?

Not really... I personally didn't think the Michael Moore films were that bad but I can see why some might criticise. As I said it used alot of pro-capitalist people to show how dangerous it is. Also one person they showed who used to be pro-capitalist, executive of some corporation in America (I didn't note the names as they didn't mean anything to me being from the UK), who was saying he'd realised how bad things had actualy got and that something needed to be done. It was very difficult afterwards to think of anything that could be said in favour of capitalism and the fact that no large cinemas would show it I think is a sign of it's effectiveness. But I'd like a pro-capitalist to see it so I could hear what they think, I'm interested to see whether it actualy has the power to convert.

[Dante Hicks]

The Corporation was a lot better than Michael Moore's films. It was "biased" (in the sense it was presenting a specific argument) but reasonably fair with much of the evidence. It was also done in a better way than Moore's films (by not having a presenter).

My criticisms :

1. It was too long. Maybe it was because I'd heard 90% of the material before, but it seemed to go on for bloody ages. It also seemed to be relying on the brute force approach to propaganda, cite enough examples in enough detail and you can beat someone into submission. Some of the individual sections (while very good) were too long (e.g. the one about Fox News cutting news stories based on advertising pressure). I think perhaps I just was thinking "Well, duh" but this might be a revelation to some people.

2. It was too depressing. The subject matter for this sort of thing is never going to exactly be smiles and sunshine, but the balance of their case was too negative. They tried to turn it around at the end (with the Indian woman activist case, or the Bolivian water example, etc) but it was too late. I saw it with my girlfriend a couple of months ago and she (Guardian reading liberal type) just felt like there was nothing that could realistically be done by the end of the film. Both of us found it a tad depressing. Even I, in the middle of the film felt a bit scared.

3. They could have been more focused. I know they only had one film but they were trying to cover every outrage ever. I would have split it into three or four main sections (the environment, the media, control of resources and exploitation of labour or something like that). I can't remember how many individual segments they did, but it seemed like dozens.

4. Some of their cases seemed like relying on an emotional response to the material given, rather than a rational one. When they interviewed Milton Friedman and that other pro-market guy (I can't remember who) they didn't actually present any rational argument against market mechanisms (or property-rights based solution), they just said in disbelief "But that would mean pricing ever square inch of the world!". I can see why that argument would appeal to a liberal/green/Christian but it didn't do anything for me. At no point did they say something like "You ****ing faggot, what good are property rights for the great majority when the majority of property is held by a tiny minority?". This disappointed me, and I suspect they also cut some of those interviews to make the people seem even more ridiculous.

5. The overall theme ("the Corporation as a psychopath") was very good, but I think they took it a little too literally. I suspect there are some twats out there will reject the metaphor and think they can then ignore the whole argument. This happens with the Moore films where people notice (quite rightly) evidence of Moore being unfair in a couple of places and presume they can ignore the wider more important point. I suspect that's whats the fags from this forum would do if they saw it.

6. In a couple of instances, they didn't do a good enough job to highlight that the various outrages they found (e.g. sweat-shop labour, newspaper self-censorship, environmental damage) were in the core of capitalism, not the periphery. I suspect many people came out of the cinema thinking "Damnit, those specific capitalists are total bastards" while not getting the wider message that those specific abuses have ocurred due to the nature of capitalism. Constant use of the carpet guy you mentioned (the born again green) reinforced this. This was a guy who was saying "My company is going to stop polluting, and we're the world's largest manufacturer in the carpet industry, so we're not just a small shop somewhere. If we can do it, everyone can start doing it." Surely this is just reinforcing the idea that corporations can reform if only they get an enlightened CEO like this dude? That ran against the first part of the movie. What were they saying? That corporations were by their nature psychopathic, or that individual CEOs were to blame?

7. As I've already mentioned, the solutions they offered weren't particularly heartening. In fact, I found it muddled. The Bolivian guy they had on was pretty right on ("people power, etc") but at other parts it just seemed confused. They had a section about a town in the US which had banned any more chain-stores opening up on it's highstreet. Which is fair enough but what was the message? If we ban enough things we can save the world? Didn't appeal to me (although that specific solution, if presented in another way could have looked cool). They then flirted with out-an-out statism ("The government can be controlled by the people which makes it better than anything else" or something like that) and brought up slightly strange cases like the State of California trying to dissolve some corporation. I could see what they were getting at, but I didn't find it appealing. They kept showing footage of the Bolivian army (government) kicking protestors in the head and then at the same time saying "Yeah, so what we need to do is give the government more power, right...". They had people like Chomsky on there so it's not like they've not been exposed to anarchist currents. It wasn't all like that, the Bolivian thing was pretty cool for example and they did talk about greater community power in general.

Having said all that, I thought it was really good although as you say, wasn't much of a revelation to me. The examples they gave were good, and it wasn't like one guy moaning on like Michael Moore or Super-Size-Me. Go see it if you can. I caught it at the Brixton Ritzy in London which shows indepedent movies, but I think it's available via bittorrent somewhere or other.

[Nusselt]

did you pay to watch it?

[Nadval]

I agree with most of what Dante said although there are some bits that the film really couldn't help, for instance the depressing nature of it. We've reached the stage, certainly in Britain, that capitalism has been 'in power' far too long and kind of lodged itself in our society. That's not to say it's there indefinately, just that it's moulded society gradually through time into something that will protect capitalism to the end. It's reached the stage where the average person isn't even interested in their future or who's controlling them etc, not because "that stuff's boring" or whatever (although that might be the reason they give), but because it's encouraged for people not to be interesting in politics. If you look back through time people haven't always been this marginalised, 50 years ago there was a lot more activism and popular movement. So we have kind of reached a depressing stage where it seems like there's little hope - but as long as there're people with some kind of voice there's still a hope... I thought the message at the end was quite strong: "The people united will never be defeated", which happens to be true, we're just a long way off unity.

I agree it was giving some mixed messages and was too long in many places. I went with a friend who I was having difficulty explaining my problems with capitalism to and I was quite worried he'd just get bored and switch off, but at the end he said it was one of the best films he's seen in a while so I guess it wasn't that bad. I think it was made for Americans so those points needed to be elaborated on in great detail - you ever tried convincing an American capitalism is bad? It's like trying to convince Hitler that all races are equal, they just don't have any of it and are disgusted that you think like that.

But in the end the thing that keeps me going is Martin Luther King... He once said 'I have a dream', and indeed then it was but a dream. We're living that dream (even with the imperfections of our current state regarding racial equality), so what seems like a distant hope to us could well be reality in 50 years time - all it requires is popular movement... Which will be as difficult, if not more so, than the civil rights movement.

I think one solution that the film didn't really touch is that CEO's of corporations should be democratically elected by all workers of the company and the communities it effects (I haven't thought in detail of how elections would work or how votes would be distributed). It seems far too contradictory to say we live in a democratic society and yet the corporations which wield most of the power are led by unelected individuals who are only in it for personal gain. One problem solved by this would be the treatment of workers - someone running for CEO would need some sort of manifesto, in which case it would be a competition for who could win the worker's votes. But I don't know how these elections would be managed or carried out, just an idea.

[Stew]

You elect a "rights for the staff" low down worker as CEO, he has no idea how to actually run a business, just how to look out for the people, he does this for a while, gives pay rises, better working conditions etc - yay \o/.

But d'oh, hold on, what is this, profits falling, market share dramatically declining, oh shit we need to lay some people off - oh crap, how does the great-new-CEO deal with this? Hmm, it's ok, we'll carry on employing them, that'll be fine for now, we'll just ask everyone to work harder, yeah that'll work, after all paid them more and they now have better working conditions. Oh no, a month later the bank is asking for a major repayment, the cash simply isn't there. Ok, well we'll get rid of some high paying, non-elected people, yeah that sounds like a plan - they;ve had years of good salaries, they won't mind.

Hmm, now there's noone but the new CEO to run things, maybe that's better, they were only interefering anyway. Oh noes, more losses, less market share, less things going well. Jobs are going to have to go, it's ok though we'll make them temporary, as in slowdown production for a while, then build it up - yeah that'll be ok. Hmm, this isn't going to plan, even more jobs will have to go - nothing seems to be going well, damn capitalist world out to get us, the firm that cares. More job cuts, factory closes, more losses at 'head offices' (pffft, who cares about these anyway).

Hang on, the CEO is the only one left - still, no job for the workers now but at least they had a year of better pay and working conditions and the like, that's better than a life time of slightly less pay - right?! Right? D'oh!

[Ste]

damn economics student

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Stew

You elect a "rights for the staff" low down worker as CEO, he has no idea how to actually run a business, just how to look out for the people, he does this for a while, gives pay rises, better working conditions etc - yay \o/.

But d'oh, hold on, what is this, profits falling, market share dramatically declining, oh shit we need to lay some people off - oh crap, how does the great-new-CEO deal with this? Hmm, it's ok, we'll carry on employing them, that'll be fine for now, we'll just ask everyone to work harder, yeah that'll work, after all paid them more and they now have better working conditions. Oh no, a month later the bank is asking for a major repayment, the cash simply isn't there. Ok, well we'll get rid of some high paying, non-elected people, yeah that sounds like a plan - they;ve had years of good salaries, they won't mind.

Hmm, now there's noone but the new CEO to run things, maybe that's better, they were only interefering anyway. Oh noes, more losses, less market share, less things going well. Jobs are going to have to go, it's ok though we'll make them temporary, as in slowdown production for a while, then build it up - yeah that'll be ok. Hmm, this isn't going to plan, even more jobs will have to go - nothing seems to be going well, damn capitalist world out to get us, the firm that cares. More job cuts, factory closes, more losses at 'head offices' (pffft, who cares about these anyway).

Hang on, the CEO is the only one left - still, no job for the workers now but at least they had a year of better pay and working conditions and the like, that's better than a life time of slightly less pay - right?! Right? D'oh!

Democracy means regular elections, people are just as prone to elect a "rights for the staff" person who doesn't know what they're talkin about as they are to elect a "rights for the people" prime minister* who doesn't know what they're talking about. People generally elect who they trust will do a good job but at the same time someone who has something to offer. You think the current CEO's will say "oh well, democratic elections, I'm out the window - bubye everyone!"? People suitable to be CEO's aren't just going to reject these still stupidly well paid jobs just because they dont' want to offer something decent to the workforce. The elections would simply force them to offer something decent e.g. profit sharing. Obviously as this is first introduced there will be problems, as there was when democracy was first introduced (and still are) - but that doesn't mean there isn't something to work towards.

*edit* notice I said Prime Minister not President. Obviously George Bush is an example where the people elected someone who doesn't offer them anything decent and doesn't know what he's talking about... But says "I'm christian, America rocks - VOTE ME!"... But hey! That's America!

[Stew]

That's a fair enough point about offering more incentives. I was only being stupid anyway and was assuming that a "rights for staff" person would easily get elected and was also being presumptious in assuming this person would not know how to run a business.

Still, saying it will all even itself out in the end is not the best way, as "In the long run, we're all dead." to quote Keynes.

[Boogster]

Find me a viable, pragmatic alternative to capitalism.

Ready, steady, GO!

[Androme]

Forgetting all the long crap in this thread that I cba to read (sorry dante), the small cinema is a bad idea for air conditioning, people farting, surround sound effects etc.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Find me a viable, pragmatic alternative to captitalism.

Ready, steady, GO!

A very typical statement. My views and aim's are not to design a society and implement it, that's far too difficult to do and extremely unlikely to work. But there are certainly obvious improvements that can be made to safeguard the rights and wellbeing of individuals and the environment against private gains for companies, whilst still maintaining the basic right to earn a living by work. The most successful societies are evolved through time by seeing what works and what doesn't, by practising new ideas to improve conditions. Some will obviously work better than others, but it's necassary to try new things to improve our society - rather than simply say "well I can't imagine a society with no problems therefore there's no point correcting the imperfections of our current state". It wasn't suddenly decided some day in the 20th century that all men and women over the age of 18 could vote, all races are equal, there should be pensions to support the old and benefits to support the less able/unemployed, there should be an NHS to provide healthcare for all citizens and all children up to the age of 16 should receive education, with the poorest receiving free school meals etc etc etc. These things developed as people became more aware of injustices and inequality. Do you suggest we just stop now? Is this perfect?

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Androme2

Forgetting all the long crap in this thread that I cba to read (sorry dante), the small cinema is a bad idea for air conditioning, people farting, surround sound effects etc.

Yer I was actualy really worried I'd embarrass myself by letting something vile loose... But I was ok in the end, few problems which was impressive considering it was a long film - got very hot in there though.

[Androme]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Yer I was actualy really worried I'd embarrass myself by letting something vile loose... But I was ok in the end, few problems which was impressive considering it was a long film - got very hot in there though.

Exactly - you get too hot, people's B.O. only has to travel a few cm's before the odour hits you, fat people take up half the cinema etc.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Nadval

I think one solution that the film didn't really touch is that CEO's of corporations should be democratically elected by all workers of the company and the communities it effects (I haven't thought in detail of how elections would work or how votes would be distributed). It seems far too contradictory to say we live in a democratic society and yet the corporations which wield most of the power are led by unelected individuals who are only in it for personal gain. One problem solved by this would be the treatment of workers - someone running for CEO would need some sort of manifesto, in which case it would be a competition for who could win the worker's votes. But I don't know how these elections would be managed or carried out, just an idea.

The CEO is normally appointed by the board of directors, who are 'elected' by the shareholders, ie the people that own the company. Several corporations give company shares to all workers, so in a sense what you are proposing is how things actually work anyway. Unless you're suggesting some kind of 'one man one vote' system, which would be pretty hilarious to watch.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The CEO is normally appointed by the board of directors, who are 'elected' by the shareholders, ie the people that own the company. Several corporations give company shares to all workers, so in a sense what you are proposing is how things actually work anyway. Unless you're suggesting some kind of 'one man one vote' system, which would be pretty hilarious to watch.

But through practise we know the current system doesn't work. I'm proposing a more direct democratic process, rather than "the CEO is appointed by people who are elected by people who are appointed by people who are appointed by the CEO". If we used such a process for who governed a country and pretended it was democratic there would be an uproar simply because the person in charge wouldn't be accountable. I can't see the current system working either in theory OR in practise.

Also emphasis on your use of the word "normally" and "several", there should be some legislation outlining the rules and conditions in how a CEO is chosen and what they can and can't do. It might well be the case that the worst companies don't have this process in place.

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by Nadval

I agree with most of what Dante said although there are some bits that the film really couldn't help, for instance the depressing nature of it. We've reached the stage, certainly in Britain, that capitalism has been 'in power' far too long and kind of lodged itself in our society. That's not to say it's there indefinately, just that it's moulded society gradually through time into something that will protect capitalism to the end. It's reached the stage where the average person isn't even interested in their future or who's controlling them etc, not because "that stuff's boring" or whatever (although that might be the reason they give), but because it's encouraged for people not to be interesting in politics. If you look back through time people haven't always been this marginalised, 50 years ago there was a lot more activism and popular movement. So we have kind of reached a depressing stage where it seems like there's little hope - but as long as there're people with some kind of voice there's still a hope... I thought the message at the end was quite strong: "The people united will never be defeated", which happens to be true, we're just a long way off unity.

I disagree. "We" (The left, the anti-capitalists and so on) think that the system/capitalism is so deeply rooted that no imminent change can happen. This is sooo wrong, in my eyes. It can happen anytime, if the right conditions are met, and it's up to us to meet those conditions. I don't know all of them, but sitting around waiting for capitalism to dissolve itself or get into a crisis is so stalin. Capitalism has proved that it can defy it's own laws to survive (Not a shock) and that it will survive any faults in it's own system. To get rid of it, "we" have to stand on the outside and dismantle it, not from the inside.
And it's not true that there were much more activism before, at least not the type of activism we can see today, and it's in many ways more dangerous then the crazy bomb-throwers we all love so much. Look at how the fur industry is ****ed up and almost bankrupt many places, due to direct action! Look at how much money they use on police to keep the black block at check on the big demonstrations, after they have ****ed up so many meetings and conventions (With others, of course). Look at how they monitor AFA and other anti-fascist groups, beacause those groups have better methods, tactics and intel in anti-fascist work.
Of course, I don't see no iminent change. And it will probably never happen in my lifetime, but that's "our" fault, not theirs. Or at least, more our. "We" can never start or guide a revolution, we can just prepare for it, spread the word, and when it happens, **** shit up.

And "we" are not far from unity, it's just hard to spot the nice things in this shitty world. Community sentres, squats, graffitichains and so on.

Sorry for jumping in late, and for ranting/rambling.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Nadval

But through practise we know the current system doesn't work. I'm proposing a more direct democratic process, rather than "the CEO is appointed by people who are elected by people who are appointed by people who are appointed by the CEO". If we used such a process for who governed a country and pretended it was democratic there would be an uproar simply because the person in charge wouldn't be accountable. I can't see the current system working either in theory OR in practise.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the current system doesnt 'work', since I've no idea what you believe it should be trying to achieve. In any case, I dont think democracy is a particularly good idea for deciding who governs a country, and it would be an even worse idea for deciding who runs a business. Why would anyone bother investing in a company which was going to end up managed by an incompetant fool who became elected due to making emotive appeals to the hearts of the workers? A company even considering such a thing would watch it's stock price evaporate into mist within 10 minutes. A country considering passing such a law would see the same thing happen to it's economy, for similar reasons.

Originally Posted by Nadval

Also emphasis on your use of the word "normally" and "several", there should be some legislation outlining the rules and conditions in how a CEO is chosen and what they can and can't do. It might well be the case that the worst companies don't have this process in place.

I believe such legislation already exists, in the form of the documents a business has to present when it is registered. These will outline the procedures for choosing a CEO, and so on.

[Nusselt]

There are rules and laws in place about the conduct of CEOs thats why people like conran black are getting massive sticks stuck up their bum.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Snurx

I disagree. "We" (The left, the anti-capitalists and so on) think that the system/capitalism is so deeply rooted that no imminent change can happen. This is sooo wrong, in my eyes. It can happen anytime, if the right conditions are met, and it's up to us to meet those conditions. I don't know all of them, but sitting around waiting for capitalism to dissolve itself or get into a crisis is so stalin. Capitalism has proved that it can defy it's own laws to survive (Not a shock) and that it will survive any faults in it's own system. To get rid of it, "we" have to stand on the outside and dismantle it, not from the inside.
And it's not true that there were much more activism before, at least not the type of activism we can see today, and it's in many ways more dangerous then the crazy bomb-throwers we all love so much. Look at how the fur industry is ****ed up and almost bankrupt many places, due to direct action! Look at how much money they use on police to keep the black block at check on the big demonstrations, after they have ****ed up so many meetings and conventions (With others, of course). Look at how they monitor AFA and other anti-fascist groups, beacause those groups have better methods, tactics and intel in anti-fascist work.
Of course, I don't see no iminent change. And it will probably never happen in my lifetime, but that's "our" fault, not theirs. Or at least, more our. "We" can never start or guide a revolution, we can just prepare for it, spread the word, and when it happens, **** shit up.

And "we" are not far from unity, it's just hard to spot the nice things in this shitty world. Community sentres, squats, graffitichains and so on.

Sorry for jumping in late, and for ranting/rambling.

I don't understand, I wasn't saying that it isn't possible to dismantle capitalism. I'm simply saying it's very deeply rooted into our society that it can sometimes seem hopeless. But that's no different to how it's ever been, the civil rights movement seemed hopeless the women's rights movement seemed hopeless. However I think you mistake scepticism for activism. people are sceptical of power and how it's used, but there's less activity against it than there has been in gone years. First awareness needs to be raised, then people need to become active - THEN there's a chance of challenging capitalism.

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by Nadval

I don't understand, I wasn't saying that it isn't possible to dismantle capitalism. I'm simply saying it's very deeply rooted into our society that it can sometimes seem hopeless. But that's no different to how it's ever been, the civil rights movement seemed hopeless the women's rights movement seemed hopeless. However I think you mistake scepticism for activism. people are sceptical of power and how it's used, but there's less activity against it than there has been in gone years. First awareness needs to be raised, then people need to become active - THEN there's a chance of challenging capitalism.

Set examples throught action, not words.

And again, I disagree. There is a lot of left-wing grasroot work, more then the people I've know that has been in the game a long time has ever seen. The problem is the left-wing. It's composed of ignorant middleclass "punkers", statistm social-democrats, reformist communists, and fascistoid elements. The ones on the left wing that (In my opinion, of course) have something to say are drowned in stereotypes and idiots. Who the **** listents to people who have a picture of Mao on their inner pocket? I know I don't. Who the **** listens to somebody who want to remove a bad system with a badder (Maybe even worse) system? And so on. The only way I can get my opinions out is by action. I throw away a leaflet somebody just gives to me, but if that guy was masked and his friends was smashing a MacDonald's, then at least I would know that they mean what they say, and probably read it.

And you can't really compare civil/woman rights with anti-capitalism fights. And, both the civil/women rights movements have failed, in my opinion that is. Racism, state financed and other types, is still a big problem, and what the hell did people make better by making women like men? Besides, "everybody" says that women should have the same rights as men and that blacks is equal, but if you mention Bakunin you get A) Beaten up B) Laughed at C) Get a discussion with people who think the same as yourself, so you can pat eachother on the back and be nice to eachother.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Went to see a film called 'The Corporation', had a bunch of people like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky in - but that wasn't the part I liked. As you no doubt had guessed, this wasn't a pro-capitalism film. It was basically telling me everything I knew about how the current form of capitalism is unsustainable, undemocratic, immoral and has indoctrinated most people in western civilisation to an extent that can be compared to that in Soviet Russia. What I liked was that it threw examples and facts at the audience, most of which I've never seen on any news broadcasting program or in any newspaper, and had interviews with major corporate executives backing up all the claims. Of course capitalism defends itself (not to mention the film was rather long and difficult to sit through so little money can be made from it) so don't expect to see this in any major cinemas, but if you see it on anywhere I certainly recommend it. It's eye opening even for someone who was already against capitalism, even if a little depressing.

I'm not too sure what your point is here. Like most marxists that I've spoken to don't claim the Soviet Union under Uncle Joe is the ideal form of marxist society I'm not out here arguing that the "capitalist" system used by the UK or the US or Germany or Japan is the perfect society. Or even just one which is sustainable.

Originally Posted by Nadval

*edit* I await the criticisms from pro-capitalists, despite the fact they haven't yet seen it After watching the bit about brainwashing it's easy to predict.

I'm unsure if this is a joke or not, usually I miss them on the internet unless it's someone I know fairly well, but I sincerely hope this is not a serious part of your argument. We can all randomly accuse each other of being brainwashed. Perhaps that's not the best way to start a debate though. And no I'm not going to criticise a film I haven't seen yet. I'm disappointed you have such a staggeringly low opinion of the "pro-capitalist" element of this forum.

Originally Posted by Nadval

Not really... I personally didn't think the Michael Moore films were that bad but I can see why some might criticise. As I said it used alot of pro-capitalist people to show how dangerous it is. Also one person they showed who used to be pro-capitalist, executive of some corporation in America (I didn't note the names as they didn't mean anything to me being from the UK), who was saying he'd realised how bad things had actualy got and that something needed to be done. It was very difficult afterwards to think of anything that could be said in favour of capitalism and the fact that no large cinemas would show it I think is a sign of it's effectiveness. But I'd like a pro-capitalist to see it so I could hear what they think, I'm interested to see whether it actualy has the power to convert.

A lot of films don't get shown in major cinemas. But yeah I wouldn't show a film that I thought would lose me money in the long-run. It's not exactly financially sound. Personally I like capitalism because I feel it rewards individual achievement. Obviously this means I'm opposed to such things as government subsidies for various industries or massive taxation against goods manufactured in third world countries. I severely doubt one film would change my mind on this. It might make me dislike what the world is currently like even more, however I don't think that's exactly what you're after. Especially seeing as I've read some books that are far more hard-hitting that it's possible for a film to be (unless it's got live pictures of capitalists stamping on babies' faces or something equally attention-grabbing).

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The Corporation was a lot better than Michael Moore's films. It was "biased" (in the sense it was presenting a specific argument) but reasonably fair with much of the evidence. It was also done in a better way than Moore's films (by not having a presenter).

I recently read house of bush, house of saud (or the other way round I forget) which was pretty decent bar the fact it was advertised under the line "the book 9/11 was based on" which made me afraid for my sanity

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

1. It was too long. Maybe it was because I'd heard 90% of the material before, but it seemed to go on for bloody ages. It also seemed to be relying on the brute force approach to propaganda, cite enough examples in enough detail and you can beat someone into submission. Some of the individual sections (while very good) were too long (e.g. the one about Fox News cutting news stories based on advertising pressure). I think perhaps I just was thinking "Well, duh" but this might be a revelation to some people.

I'm pretty sure most people don't know stuff like this. GD, and a lot of other internet forums, are fairly enlightened places. Many people just don't have a real "arena" to debate it and therefore their knowledge is rarely either challenged or expanded.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

4. Some of their cases seemed like relying on an emotional response to the material given, rather than a rational one. When they interviewed Milton Friedman and that other pro-market guy (I can't remember who) they didn't actually present any rational argument against market mechanisms (or property-rights based solution), they just said in disbelief "But that would mean pricing ever square inch of the world!". I can see why that argument would appeal to a liberal/green/Christian but it didn't do anything for me. At no point did they say something like "You ****ing faggot, what good are property rights for the great majority when the majority of property is held by a tiny minority?". This disappointed me, and I suspect they also cut some of those interviews to make the people seem even more ridiculous.

I quite like Milton Friedman

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

5. The overall theme ("the Corporation as a psychopath") was very good, but I think they took it a little too literally. I suspect there are some twats out there will reject the metaphor and think they can then ignore the whole argument. This happens with the Moore films where people notice (quite rightly) evidence of Moore being unfair in a couple of places and presume they can ignore the wider more important point. I suspect that's whats the fags from this forum would do if they saw it.

As a pro-capitalist who posts pretty frequently I find this slightly unfair. What rational points do you think I refuse to acknowledge?

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

6. In a couple of instances, they didn't do a good enough job to highlight that the various outrages they found (e.g. sweat-shop labour, newspaper self-censorship, environmental damage) were in the core of capitalism, not the periphery. I suspect many people came out of the cinema thinking "Damnit, those specific capitalists are total bastards" while not getting the wider message that those specific abuses have ocurred due to the nature of capitalism. Constant use of the carpet guy you mentioned (the born again green) reinforced this. This was a guy who was saying "My company is going to stop polluting, and we're the world's largest manufacturer in the carpet industry, so we're not just a small shop somewhere. If we can do it, everyone can start doing it." Surely this is just reinforcing the idea that corporations can reform if only they get an enlightened CEO like this dude? That ran against the first part of the movie. What were they saying? That corporations were by their nature psychopathic, or that individual CEOs were to blame?

To pick up one one point, that of environmental damage done by corporations surely having laws against pollution would be the sensible approach? I find it smacks of the same reasoning that asserts that we should ban drugs because they lead to higher levels of crime. Things like newspaper self-censorship I'd combat through encouraging people to seek our alternative means of finding the news. Personally I read znet, capmag, the irish times, the sunday tribune, the independent on sunday, the (english) times, a few tabloid newspapers and any newspaper reports I get linked to from GD each week. Obviously receiving all your news from just one source is a pretty poor idea, but for me that's linked far more with a lack of education than "capitalism".

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

7. As I've already mentioned, the solutions they offered weren't particularly heartening. In fact, I found it muddled. The Bolivian guy they had on was pretty right on ("people power, etc") but at other parts it just seemed confused. They had a section about a town in the US which had banned any more chain-stores opening up on it's highstreet. Which is fair enough but what was the message? If we ban enough things we can save the world? Didn't appeal to me (although that specific solution, if presented in another way could have looked cool). They then flirted with out-an-out statism ("The government can be controlled by the people which makes it better than anything else" or something like that) and brought up slightly strange cases like the State of California trying to dissolve some corporation. I could see what they were getting at, but I didn't find it appealing. They kept showing footage of the Bolivian army (government) kicking protestors in the head and then at the same time saying "Yeah, so what we need to do is give the government more power, right...". They had people like Chomsky on there so it's not like they've not been exposed to anarchist currents. It wasn't all like that, the Bolivian thing was pretty cool for example and they did talk about greater community power in general.

People power is usually pretty cool. I'm opposed to violent solutions (unless you're responding to violence or the imminent threat of violence). I'm opposed to a town banning a chain store opening on it's high-street (don't shop there, organise picket-lines or spread factual information about their appalling practices would be what I would support). Statism is not the greatest idea in the history of man.

Originally Posted by Nadval

But in the end the thing that keeps me going is Martin Luther King... He once said 'I have a dream', and indeed then it was but a dream. We're living that dream (even with the imperfections of our current state regarding racial equality), so what seems like a distant hope to us could well be reality in 50 years time - all it requires is popular movement... Which will be as difficult, if not more so, than the civil rights movement.

I've always thought if I lived in a totalitarian society I'd be one of those people who goes "hay this sucks" but not really do anything about it. I suppose I'm fairly self-centred so really what runs through my head is "I don't care unless it affects me (or will affect me soon)". Willing to argue on the internet about something (because I enjoy both arguing on the internet and (especially) the people I find I argue with in this forum specifically). If you suceed and we abolish capitalism and start doing xyz I'd probably sleep in my communal hut, go to work and slack off, go out and drink, play poker and use the internet. Bar the fact my hut wouldn't be mine (hell it isn't now anyways seeing as I live with my parents, you should try renting an apartment in dublin ****ing hell) it'd be pretty similar to my life as it is now. I like to think I'm intelligent and well-educated and I could probably help accomplish a fair bit but realistically I don't expect to do much in my life. I like my hedonistic lifestyle and all that accompanies and I'm not going to endanger that by going out and striving for social justice for the rest of my life. Sorry

There seems to be a bit of discussion on democracy but to avoid quoting 15 paragraphs to make my point I'd just like to say a few fairly straight-forward things. Politicians only have to be good at getting into office and staying there. To stay there they have to convince a certain number of people that they're the best option for the job. At no point do they have to be good at their job. What would improve democracy is if people enquired closer into whether their elected officials really are doing a good job. I guess I'm not really pro-capitalism or anti-totalitarianism. I'm pro-intelligence.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the current system doesnt 'work', since I've no idea what you believe it should be trying to achieve.

There's no doubt what a corporation is there to achieve - profits, and that's the problem. An institution who's soul purpose is to earn money, cannot be expected to be ethical or consider how it's actions might effect those unable to defend themselves. Someone can be quite ethical with concerns for events around the globe, yet work for a corporation which is responsible for environmental destruction, exploitation of workers, disregard for public health etc and remain completely guilt free. Why? Because it's this money-making institution that's responsible, not them. In which case checks and balances must be in place to ensure a corporation does not abuse it's position in society.

Anyone under the impression that the corporations responsible for doing bad things are just 'a few bad apples' is mistaken. It isn't a 'few' corporations, as was explained in the film, it was a large number of corporations, many of them well known (not that any of this would be reported to people by broadcasting stations or newspapers funded by corporate advertisement). The nature of capitalism means that a corporation is almost certainly going to do what it can to maximise profits, if the gains are more than the losses when they get sued, they'll do it. No question of morals in there, if they make a gain they'll do it. Sometimes it's worth it to appear ethical in order to widen the appeal to consumers, but the overall aim is never to contribute to society but simply to make money. Anyone who trusts a guilt-free institution whose only aim is to maximise profits is, in my opinion, a fool.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

In any case, I dont think democracy is a particularly good idea for deciding who governs a country, and it would be an even worse idea for deciding who runs a business.

What would you suggest as a better system than democracy? Until we establish that democracy is the best balance between an efficient system and a moral system we won't get anywhere on this topic. That isn't to say current forms of democracy can't be improved, but simply saying democracy isn't a good idea seems to me totally unfounded. The problem at the moment lies with the ignorance of the masses - but personally I'd put that partly down to capitalism.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm not too sure what your point is here. Like most marxists that I've spoken to don't claim the Soviet Union under Uncle Joe is the ideal form of marxist society I'm not out here arguing that the "capitalist" system used by the UK or the US or Germany or Japan is the perfect society. Or even just one which is sustainable.

I wasn't making a point in the first post, I was simply giving a brief explanation of what the film was about. I hadn't questioned your views on the capitalist countries of today nor had I referred to soviet countries, so it seems slightly irrelevant.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm unsure if this is a joke or not, usually I miss them on the internet unless it's someone I know fairly well, but I sincerely hope this is not a serious part of your argument. We can all randomly accuse each other of being brainwashed. Perhaps that's not the best way to start a debate though. And no I'm not going to criticise a film I haven't seen yet. I'm disappointed you have such a staggeringly low opinion of the "pro-capitalist" element of this forum.

It was half joke half serious, I probably would have simply phrased it less bluntly if I was trying to make a point. I won't accuse people of being brainwashed, because it's blindingly obvious that everyone (or a very very large majorty) is, but people don't like that word so we'll use 'indoctrinated' instead. Noone doubts that people's beliefs are effected by the environment they're brought up and/or live in. What people find difficult to accept is that the environment they're surrounded by has been moulded and influenced by powerful institutions, capitalist or not, and that the larger part of their thought range is therefore determined by those powerful institutions. What I think makes some less indoctrinated than others is the acknowledgement of this 'brainwashing'. For instance, when I'm forming an opinion on something, I consider why I believe what I believe and then look for connections between that reason and things that may have effected me throughout my life, whose purpose may not be in the interest of society or humanity as a whole. I basically try and consider a lot of things before I decide what stance I take on a given issue. But it should be obvious to you I have a staggeringly low opinion of pro-capitalism and it's my thorough belief that anyone pro-capitalist is either: indoctrinated to the extent they think it's good for society, benefits from it so doesn't care, or simply doesn't care for what's morally right and wrong. I am aware this will probably annoy a few people but *shrugs* that's why I originally didn't want to go into it.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

A lot of films don't get shown in major cinemas. But yeah I wouldn't show a film that I thought would lose me money in the long-run. It's not exactly financially sound. Personally I like capitalism because I feel it rewards individual achievement. Obviously this means I'm opposed to such things as government subsidies for various industries or massive taxation against goods manufactured in third world countries. I severely doubt one film would change my mind on this. It might make me dislike what the world is currently like even more, however I don't think that's exactly what you're after. Especially seeing as I've read some books that are far more hard-hitting that it's possible for a film to be (unless it's got live pictures of capitalists stamping on babies' faces or something equally attention-grabbing).

The film points out many problems around the world and makes you realise the reason is capitalism. I'd like to say the film points out that it's the fundamental nature of capitalism that creates these problems but it doesn't really go very deeply into that. If you want to go into that I suggest you read Marx, he actualy predicted many problems and features that can be seen in modern capitalist societies.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I've always thought if I lived in a totalitarian society I'd be one of those people who goes "hay this sucks" but not really do anything about it. I suppose I'm fairly self-centred so really what runs through my head is "I don't care unless it affects me (or will affect me soon)". Willing to argue on the internet about something (because I enjoy both arguing on the internet and (especially) the people I find I argue with in this forum specifically). If you suceed and we abolish capitalism and start doing xyz I'd probably sleep in my communal hut, go to work and slack off, go out and drink, play poker and use the internet. Bar the fact my hut wouldn't be mine (hell it isn't now anyways seeing as I live with my parents, you should try renting an apartment in dublin ****ing hell) it'd be pretty similar to my life as it is now. I like to think I'm intelligent and well-educated and I could probably help accomplish a fair bit but realistically I don't expect to do much in my life. I like my hedonistic lifestyle and all that accompanies and I'm not going to endanger that by going out and striving for social justice for the rest of my life. Sorry

So long as you realise it's only due to popular movement and activism that you have the freedom to decide that, without you'd probably still be oppressed by us Brits and have very few freedoms. Vulnerable people with little power who're being exploited and abused need support from the wealthy, well off people who don't particularly benefit from helping them. I presume you have a similar attitude to the victims of the tsunami...?

To me we do live in a totalitarian society. The ingenious thing about it is that the level of indoctrination is such that people don't realise it's a totalitarian society, or (obviously) that they're indoctrinated. How much room for anti-capitalist discussion is there in the media? How do you think the average person would react to a question on the structure of society? My opinion is they probably wouldn't have a clue, without the capacity to question power how can one ever possibly challange power? The media sets the framework for debate for 'the average person' and anything outside of that is out of the question. That, to me (as someone whose views aren't within that framework), is totalitarianism - not an extreme form, but a form nevertheless.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

There seems to be a bit of discussion on democracy but to avoid quoting 15 paragraphs to make my point I'd just like to say a few fairly straight-forward things. Politicians only have to be good at getting into office and staying there. To stay there they have to convince a certain number of people that they're the best option for the job. At no point do they have to be good at their job. What would improve democracy is if people enquired closer into whether their elected officials really are doing a good job. I guess I'm not really pro-capitalism or anti-totalitarianism. I'm pro-intelligence.

I think the point you make about politicians is more to do with the fact most people are unable to see beyond the face of what politicians are doing. That isn't a problem with democracy but rather specific to our society. I think it could be solved by a huge reform of the education system and the introduction of Government and Politics as compulsary in secondary education. Does it not seem rather odd that education in textiles, or music, or even things such as history and modern languages, is deemed more important than knowledge of how one's country is governed. I'm inclined to believe it's an example of power protecting itself and see no evidence of anything else.

Originally Posted by Snurx

Who the **** listens to somebody who want to remove a bad system with a badder (Maybe even worse) system? And so on. The only way I can get my opinions out is by action. I throw away a leaflet somebody just gives to me, but if that guy was masked and his friends was smashing a MacDonald's, then at least I would know that they mean what they say, and probably read it.

You're more inclined to listen to someone using violence than someone using peaceful means? I think it's those kind of things which give 'the left' a bad name...

Originally Posted by Snurx

And you can't really compare civil/woman rights with anti-capitalism fights. And, both the civil/women rights movements have failed, in my opinion that is. Racism, state financed and other types, is still a big problem, and what the hell did people make better by making women like men? Besides, "everybody" says that women should have the same rights as men and that blacks is equal, but if you mention Bakunin you get A) Beaten up B) Laughed at C) Get a discussion with people who think the same as yourself, so you can pat eachother on the back and be nice to eachother.

I have a feeling you're a white heterosexual male, as only then would you claim that such movements have failed. I'll not claim that things are perfect, but it would appear so to someone looking at our society from before those movements developed. It is only because we take modern freedoms and rights for granted that we notice the imperfections in our society, if you compare it to 60 years ago then, as I said, we're living a dream. Bakunin generally doesn't get a positive reception as he was a founder of anarchism which is generally considered extremely idealistic; that humans don't need rules and laws to coexist peacefully.*




I await much criticism.


*Oh and by the way, it wasn't about 'making women more like men', it was about giving them the same rights and freedoms as men, or don't you think they deserve that?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm not too sure what your point is here. Like most marxists that I've spoken to don't claim the Soviet Union under Uncle Joe is the ideal form of marxist society I'm not out here arguing that the "capitalist" system used by the UK or the US or Germany or Japan is the perfect society. Or even just one which is sustainable.

I think the problem here is that "capitalists" who argue on forums hold a dual position -
(a) That modern capitalism is really great because it's achieved so much - personal freedoms, industrialisation, consumer products, etc, etc.

But then when any problem is highlighted with modern capitalism (infringement of individual rights, environmental problems perhaps - that sort of thing) it's inevitably said (b) Well what we have now isn't capitalism, and even if it is, I'm not talking about that kind of capitalism anyway!

Which is fair enough, but seems mildly contradictory. It's like the old Marxists who want to gloat over how great some of the Soviet's achievements were (say, in 50-60 years a relatively impoverished country putting a satellite in space before the imperial centres or whatever) but then want to say "Well, obviously I don't support the loss of freedoms", ignoring that, to an extent at least - one flows from the other and you can't easily seperate the two out.

And no I'm not going to criticise a film I haven't seen yet. I'm disappointed you have such a staggeringly low opinion of the "pro-capitalist" element of this forum.

Some of the criticism of Michael Moore's film(s) was slightly unfair, I felt. I don't have time to go through the old threads to find examples, but there was a trend there. It doesn't matter particularly. However, I think you are being too sensitive here, the "pro-capitalist" element on the forum doesn't just include people like you and Nod. I'd also say that random people like Boogster or Vaio were "pro-capitalism" and obviously they don't exactly fall to the same standards as yourself.

I severely doubt one film would change my mind on this. It might make me dislike what the world is currently like even more, however I don't think that's exactly what you're after.

I would agree. I think Nadval is a little over-excited by the movie, it's unlikely to change someone's opinion who had already thought about the subject for a couple of hours. But I doubt that's what it was there to do. But a viewpoint is kind of like a ceramic. It's hard as **** AFTER it's been formed, but before it has, or during it's formation, it's a lot more pliable.

To take a simple analogy : A person believes that the drug laws are immoral because they infringe on individual rights. Even if they found out that E killed 95% of people who experimented with it or something ridiculous, they probably would still be "pro-drugs-choice". However, in practical terms they probably went down that philosophical road (as it were) because they realised originally that things like E were relatively safe. Empirical evidence forms opinions, which people then form arguments around. Once the argument is formed it's sort of self-sustaining. This film is more for people whose mind isn't 100% made up yet. Those people can still be affected.

I'm pretty sure most people don't know stuff like this. GD, and a lot of other internet forums, are fairly enlightened places. Many people just don't have a real "arena" to debate it and therefore their knowledge is rarely either challenged or expanded.

100% agreed.

I quite like Milton Friedman

Actually in the movie he didn't say anything objectionable in the movie. I can't even remember why he was there to be honest, I think he may have been making historical points. But he wasn't representing any intellectual standpoint as such (there was another guy there who was - from some think tank or other). But the movie was not an attempt to be fair to both sides of the arguments. They had a couple of people there from corporations, but they were mainly there for show.

As a pro-capitalist who posts pretty frequently I find this slightly unfair. What rational points do you think I refuse to acknowledge?

I didn't mean you exactly when I was posting dude. But I do feel that people tend to treat subject matter which they disagree with more harshly than stuff they do agree with (well, duh). This is perfectly natural and I certainly do it (unconsciously most of the time) although I do try to be slightly "objective" (lol).

[Veil05]

I saw Blade 3 at my local UGC. It was an eye opening experience into Vampires and how they eat people...

take that capitalism.

[Dante Hicks]

(Handling this in different post as slightly different subject matter)

Originally Posted by JBG

To pick up one one point, that of environmental damage done by corporations surely having laws against pollution would be the sensible approach?

I think here the main argument is about how externalities are handled in capitalism more generally. Yeah there are laws (and there will be a lot more environmental laws as the years go by) but these laws are not evenly applied around the world, and right now it makes economic sense for companies to set up shop in low-cost / low-environmental-protections parts of the world. Becuase of this countries desperate for investment have an incentive to lower (or keep low) environmental protection standards in their countries. Sure, all 3rd world countries could get together to form some kind of union (which no country will then "scab") but that's pretty ****ing hard to organise.

Things like newspaper self-censorship I'd combat through encouraging people to seek our alternative means of finding the news.[...]Obviously receiving all your news from just one source is a pretty poor idea, but for me that's linked far more with a lack of education than "capitalism".

To an extent, yes. An enlightened populace (whatever that means) which could "defend itself" from propaganda could function pretty well with any news source. Irrespective of the source I think you reach a level where you read everything with a certain filter in place looking specifically for bullshit (e.g. poor arguments, sensationalism, etc). I can read a story about pretty much any subject and will often notice something is being unfair even if I know nothing on the subject matter (based on the writing style or something like that).

But the point is that under capitalism (or "the current economic system dominated by corporations" if you prefer) news sources are increasingly being combined (in terms of ownership) in the hands of a few corporations. These corporations have interests to be served/protected and therefore it is entirely rational that they present the news in a certain way. This would be fine if there were thousands of independent outlets, but increasingly the media isn't owned that way. There's various (US) statistics about how each city used to have 3/4 main newspapers but now it's 1/2. So you have less diversity. If that one newspaper which reports on local / city news happens to rely on advertising (or something like that) from a corporation which is dealing with a major strike in the city, do we really expect the coverage of the strike to be fair? Of course, if it was a major employer then probably all newspapers would have relied on them, but that's an aside.

There are counter-trends to this, and news sources which are hideously biased will probably lose readership/viewers in the long run. But whether these trends are strong enough to fully counteract that remains to be seen.

Now, undoubtedly you (or anyone else) will sigh and say "But dude, I don't support the existing system" which is fair enough, but I've yet to see a rational argument from a "capitalist" which outlines how concentration of ownership would be stopped by removing existing media-regulation-law. Now, you might not give a shit about this concentration and might see it as the natural outcome to capitalism. But surely you can see why some people would be worried that 90% of the "media" (newspapers+tv+such) will end up in 3/4 corporations hands. Shit, there's some statistic that x% of media copy in newspapers in the world is simply recycled stuff from the main wire services (Reuters, AP, etc). And then when you look at something like TimeWarner you realise how much editorial copy they (on some level or another) control. It's scary. Now, crude analysis of things like this always get's to a totalitarian nightmare situation where "Mr TimeWarner" sits on his throne aboard the Deathstar and orders all his magazines / tv stations / newspapers / etc to run a story on why "I am teh best!!!". But it doesn't (and won't) work like that. It'll be nuanced and gradual and the bias will be difficult to detect (at least, overall). That makes it much more dangerous (in some ways) than blatant propaganda.

As it happens, I'm not too worried about all of this. 20 years ago or more I would have been ****ing terrified by a Rupert-Murdoch dominated future but fortunately I think the internet is a loaded gun aimed at the head of pretty much all traditional media. People rightly make fun of blogs for being self-absorbed crap, but I think they will be an important bulwark against the corporate media in the next 10 years or so. I've already talked extensively elsewhere about how I got my news about 9/11 from a Marxist dude in New York who wrote about what was going on. But it's best not to be too confident, there are certain jobs which we rely on the traditional media for at the moment.

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by Nadval

You're more inclined to listen to someone using violence than someone using peaceful means? I think it's those kind of things which give 'the left' a bad name...

I have a feeling you're a white heterosexual male, as only then would you claim that such movements have failed. I'll not claim that things are perfect, but it would appear so to someone looking at our society from before those movements developed. It is only because we take modern freedoms and rights for granted that we notice the imperfections in our society, if you compare it to 60 years ago then, as I said, we're living a dream. Bakunin generally doesn't get a positive reception as he was a founder of anarchism which is generally considered extremely idealistic; that humans don't need rules and laws to coexist peacefully.*

Violence is a means that has to be used to get rid of something. Violence is frowned upon. Violence shows who really means something and who is just a rich-snot that want's to "save the world" beacause his daddy is destroying it.
Look at anti-fascism. If not for the violent/militant movement, things would have exploded. I don't know much about the situation in the UK, but look at Norway and Denmark, where the nazi problem is a tiny fraction of what it is it for example Sweden. Norway and Denmark has one of the most militant antifascists, both historically and when it's nessesary.
Look at the big meetings. People have been wawing their flags, holding their banners, and screaming their slogans for soo many years. It was with the "introduction" (Or, mass appeal) of the black block in Seattle that the general public got more information about these meetings, and it was there that the meeting first was ****ed up.
Of course, I'm not saying that everybody on the left who is not militant is a asshole. Militancy, in for example antifascism, will never work without a large backing of people. A small elite-click of rioters will never make a revolution, but they are a nessesary in taking the day to day struggles and if the change ever comes. It's combining several work-methods that things are sucsessfull.
And I don't belive you get hated on for militancy. In Norway, the communist party gets like 2% or something at elections. Blitz, a counter-culture squat place for smelly punkers, has about 50-60% support in the general population. They are pretty known thorught the autonome left (and the police) for being pretty violent when they need to.

I say that beacause foreginers/immigrants are still not getting jobs, homosexuals is still getting beat up, women is still not given the same rights as men. It's far from a dream, I know people who lived for 60 years ago and was rebellious then. Those movements was hijacked by people who futhered their own careers and they was given crumbs to become satisfied. Like it is today. I can't talk about the situation in America, beacause I don't know about it, but Norway is not a good place if you're either a woman, named Abdulla or likes other guys. Of course, I'm a little bombastic. Women can, for instance, get abortion. But that is beneficial to the male population as well! Where is equal pay? Homosexuals can't get married in Norway. If you have a doctors degree from outside certain countires, you can't get a job or get qualification. This society is racists, womanhating and gaybashing to the bones. People were given crumbs so that when they complain and want the whole bakery, the politicians (from left to right) can say "But you have those rights, don't complain, vote for us and it gets better", so that the general public dismisses the ones that complain as ignorant and egoistical fools.
And what I meant about women being like men is, you see these career women portrayed as the "victory of femminism" or whatever, when they in reality just became like men, in the sense of their career hunting.

This rant lacks direction, proper grammar, nice words and probably meaning.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think the problem here is that "communists" who argue on forums hold a dual position -
(a) That communism is really great because it could achieved so much - personal freedom, nirvana for all, fluffier kittens, etc, etc.

But then when any problem is highlighted with implementations of communism (mass murder of millions of people, countries regressing back to the dark ages- that sort of thing), it's inevitably said (b) Well what we had then wasn't communism, and even if it was, I'm not talking about that kind of communism anyway!
.

I've explained to you before why your "capitalism = america yet communism != soviet russia" stance is wildly hypocritical, yet you continue to post it over and over again

Capitalism is a perfectly well defined term, which refers to the politco-economic system where property is privately owned (or alternatively, "where property exists"). I'm not sure why you think theres a problem with asserting that the partial implementation of capitalist ideas has led to significant advances in countries such as America, while simultaneously condemning the statist aspects of said countries which also exist.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Snurx

Violence is a means that has to be used to get rid of something. Violence is frowned upon. Violence shows who really means something and who is just a rich-snot that want's to "save the world" beacause his daddy is destroying it.

Perhaps it's because you're from Norway and I'm from Britain, but I can guarentee you a pro-violence movement here wouldn't get anywhere. It was established years ago that non-violence is required in order to appeal to the masses. The civil rights movement in America, for example, would never have got off the ground if black people had turned it into a civil war and simply started fighting all the racists in the south.

I say that beacause foreginers/immigrants are still not getting jobs, homosexuals is still getting beat up, women is still not given the same rights as men. It's far from a dream, I know people who lived for 60 years ago and was rebellious then. Those movements was hijacked by people who futhered their own careers and they was given crumbs to become satisfied. Like it is today. I can't talk about the situation in America, beacause I don't know about it, but Norway is not a good place if you're either a woman, named Abdulla or likes other guys. Of course, I'm a little bombastic. Women can, for instance, get abortion. But that is beneficial to the male population as well! Where is equal pay? Homosexuals can't get married in Norway. If you have a doctors degree from outside certain countires, you can't get a job or get qualification. This society is racists, womanhating and gaybashing to the bones. People were given crumbs so that when they complain and want the whole bakery, the politicians (from left to right) can say "But you have those rights, don't complain, vote for us and it gets better", so that the general public dismisses the ones that complain as ignorant and egoistical fools.
And what I meant about women being like men is, you see these career women portrayed as the "victory of femminism" or whatever, when they in reality just became like men, in the sense of their career hunting.

Again I think it's because you're from Norway. You saying this makes me realise how far the movements in Britain actualy did go to gain rights for these people. That's not to say everyone's attitude towards other races, women and homosexuals is up to standard, but it's certainly a minority of people who question these things. The law here states women mustn't be discriminated against with regard to equal pay and it's illegal to be racist fullstop - infact many relatively famous people have lost jobs over it in the media.

Women were given the ability to earn money at an equal standard to men. If you didn't have this freedom I think you'd realise how demoralising and difficult it was. Many do still, sadly, hold traditional views with regard to relationships and roles around the house.

This rant lacks direction, proper grammar, nice words and probably meaning.[/quote]

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Now, undoubtedly you (or anyone else) will sigh and say "But dude, I don't support the existing system" which is fair enough, but I've yet to see a rational argument from a "capitalist" which outlines how concentration of ownership would be stopped by removing existing media-regulation-law. Now, you might not give a shit about this concentration and might see it as the natural outcome to capitalism. But surely you can see why some people would be worried that 90% of the "media" (newspapers+tv+such) will end up in 3/4 corporations hands. Shit, there's some statistic that x% of media copy in newspapers in the world is simply recycled stuff from the main wire services (Reuters, AP, etc). And then when you look at something like TimeWarner you realise how much editorial copy they (on some level or another) control. It's scary. Now, crude analysis of things like this always get's to a totalitarian nightmare situation where "Mr TimeWarner" sits on his throne aboard the Deathstar and orders all his magazines / tv stations / newspapers / etc to run a story on why "I am teh best!!!". But it doesn't (and won't) work like that. It'll be nuanced and gradual and the bias will be difficult to detect (at least, overall). That makes it much more dangerous (in some ways) than blatant propaganda.

If you were to rank the countries of the world based on how easy it was to access and distribute 'alternative' (anti-government/status quo/whatever) media, do you think the countries towards the top of the list would be those with a reasonable amount of capitalist policies, or those with few? Why do you believe it is even possible that a group of companies could control the media to that extent, in the absence of governmental regulations preventing other companies and individuals from exploring alternative methods of distributing information? Look at the hype over how many traditional radio stations ClearChannel currently owns for instance, when it's fairly obvious that digital and internet radio will replace traditional broadcasting within 20 years. If anything, the existing regulations on radio broadcasting are suppressing the development of these alternative mediums, rather than protecting the "right of the people to hear different kinds of music" or whatever other crap is being used to justify the governmental support of an obsolete system. People are probably correct in that there is no way to properly 'regulate the airwaves' under pure capitalism, so it's just as well that the market is going to make the whole issue irrelevant anyway.

As another example, consider your own point regarding internet news agencies beginning to challenge conventional news sources. It's the exact same thing as before - something like drudgereport or indymedia would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, and their success is largely due to capitalism driving forwards certain aspects of the internet.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Nadval

There's no doubt what a corporation is there to achieve - profits, and that's the problem.

Why is this a problem? I'd personally be more willing to trust someone who I knew depended on me, and others like me, for their income. If I were sick, I'd rather be treated by a doctor who was held financially accountable to market forces and wanted to make as money as possible, rather than by one working for the 'joy of helping people' and receiving a fixed salary from the government regardless of competance.

When a cure for cancer is eventually discovered by some pharmaceutical corporation as a result of millions of dollars being pumped into R&D in order to eventually make a profit by selling it, will this be a 'problem' to you? Are there many significant technological advances which haven't been discovered/marketed either as a result of someone's desire to make money, or some other selfish interest?

An institution who's soul purpose is to earn money, cannot be expected to be ethical or consider how it's actions might effect those unable to defend themselves.

Again, why not? Companies generally have an image to maintain, and one which openly engaged in "unethical" practices would be likely to incur boycotts from those who disagreed with it's practices.

Someone can be quite ethical with concerns for events around the globe, yet work for a corporation which is responsible for environmental destruction, exploitation of workers, disregard for public health etc and remain completely guilt free.

I'm not sure why enviornmental destruction is bad, and 'exploitation of workers' is a meaningless term outside of Marxist models of sociology. Perhaps by 'companies act unethically', you actually mean 'other people disagree with my idea of what is morally wrong'?

[Nodrog]

I'm not sure why that's relevant to what I posted

[Stew]

I am going to ask a blindingly obvious question here because I'm uneducated in this.

Why exactly will "Capitalism ultimately pave the way for its own destruction."?

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Why is this a problem? I'd personally be more willing to trust someone who I knew depended on me, and others like me, for their income. If I were sick, I'd rather be treated by a doctor who was held financially accountable to market forces and wanted to make as money as possible, rather than by one working for the 'joy of helping people' and receiving a fixed salary from the government regardless of competance.

When a cure for cancer is eventually discovered by some pharmaceutical corporation as a result of millions of dollars being pumped into R&D in order to eventually make a profit by selling it, will this be a 'problem' to you?

It will be a problem to me if that corporation claims it was them that found the cure for cancer, discounting all the money that goes to research from private chairities and such. Good luck with your doctor who's using the cheapest pharmaceuticals with god knows what in simply to maximise profits. If you come back with "would a company really do this" then you're an idiot who's been living in a box the last 10 years.

Again, why not? Companies generally have an image to maintain, and one which openly engaged in "unethical" practices would be likely to incur boycotts from those who disagreed with it's practices.

I'm not sure why enviornmental destruction is bad, and 'exploitation of workers' is a meaningless term outside of Marxist models of sociology. Perhaps by 'companies act unethically', you actually mean 'other people disagree with my idea of what is morally wrong'?

Why is environmental destruction bad... Hmm I'm sure there's something about 'the place we live' and 'we'll all die in the next 100 years' in there somewhere... To put it to the extreme. You obviously aren't planning on having children, as if you were you'd be concerned for their future living conditions.

A 12 year old girl being paid 3 cents to make a jumper that will be sold for $175 on the American market is being exploited. Particularly as in many cases that girl would have to feed an entire family with what she's being paid.* This kind of near-slavery is practised by most major clothes distributers - nike, gap, topshop, H&M, next etc. I'm just using the clothes industry as an example, most other industries that can base factories or plantations in third world countries and pay workers shit to make their products do so e.g. drink and food companies. It's simply the nature of capitalism.

If the news stations funded by corporations aren't reporting the fact that many of these companies are carrying out atrocities and supporting fascist regimes (as those are countries in which workers have the fewest rights) then people can't become aware and join boycotts. The fact that people like yourself live comfortable lifestyles so simply don't care doesn't help.

*If you say "that 3 cents is a lot to her" then a) you're wrong, it isn't enough and b) you're racist, as you obviously believe due to them coming from a poorer country their labour is worth less. If you don't think British children should be subject to that kind of treatment then noone around the globe should be, it's called equality. (Apologies if you weren't going to say this but it deeply annoys me when people make such arguments, so I thought I'd pre-empt it)

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Stew

I am going to ask a blindingly obvious question here because I'm uneducated in this.

Why exactly will "Capitalism ultimately pave the way for its own destruction."?

Because if a corporation can make lots of money on an anti-capitalist film, they would produce it. An example of this is the Michael Moore films, although he did have much difficulty finding a distributer for them (particularly 9/11). To use his words "A capitalist would sell you the rope to hang him on if he thought he could make a buck out of it" (may not be exact words but something similar). But the film would have to make them a lot of money for them to show it, which we haven't yet had. My guess is first there'll be a few that don't make the cinemas but get some decent write-ups, sell well as DVD's/videos then some major cinemas begin to show them. It can be seen more in the book industry. But don't be mistaken by this, it's still very difficult to have these things shown and, as I said, they'll have to be sure they'll make a lot of money before they distribute something advocating their demise.

[mist]

if someone's paid 3 cents an hour, as opposed to whatever the minimum wage is in this country nowadays then that seems perfectly fair IF said 3 cents will buy the same amount as the minimum wage will here. if this is the case then they're not actually getting paid less, the difference is just an artifact of currency and living costs.

your assertion that it's not enough is probably true, but just asserting it doesn't make it so.

also, branding people racists doesn't seem particularly helpful. people in the north of the uk are paid less than in the south. the cost of living is also lower, generally. does my believing that this makes 'sense' make me racist as well?

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by mist

if someone's paid 3 cents an hour, as opposed to whatever the minimum wage is in this country nowadays then that seems perfectly fair IF said 3 cents will buy the same amount as the minimum wage will here. if this is the case then they're not actually getting paid less, the difference is just an artifact of currency and living costs.

your assertion that it's not enough is probably true, but just asserting it doesn't make it so.

also, branding people racists doesn't seem particularly helpful. people in the north of the uk are paid less than in the south. the cost of living is also lower, generally. does my believing that this makes 'sense' make me racist as well?

You have a point there, but it's still exploiting (i.e. taking advantage of) the poor conditions those people find themselves in. The company can afford to pay them more, but pay them just enough to keep them working in order to maximise profits. I can't see how one could argue it's a perfectly moral thing to do. But I see what you're saying about the racism thing, I got a bit heated and tend to exaggerate or make unfair comparisons when I do

*EDIT* But it should also be pointed out that the North of Britain is poorer than the South, and Taccata is right in saying even after considering the relative buying power of money, people in third world countries are still being awfully underpaid. It is because of things like this that these countries are much poorer, not despite them.

[Stew]

You can't have one specific factory paying loads more than the others around it - it just wouldn't work, thus they pay the market wage. If that's not enough, blame government, make them introduce a better minimum wage and enforce it, don't blame the 'corportation'.

[Nadval]

There's no point blaming fascist regimes for being unjust, we know that already. If it could be changed easily then it would have been done. However you can blame corporations for cooperating with fascist regimes and taking advantage of poor working conditions. If it's not acceptable to treat workers poorly in our country (thus our welfare laws), then how can you justify doing it in another country simply because the laws aren't there to prevent you.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Nadval

If it's not acceptable to treat workers poorly in our country (thus our welfare laws), then how can you justify doing it in another country simply because the laws aren't there to prevent you.

Because corporations don't have any obligation to treat workers to a certain standard, except those laid down by the law, and neither should they. They are there to maximise profit. The only way to force them to act differently is by changes to the law. If the givernment is failing them, then lobby the government, not the corporation.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Stew

Because corporations don't have any obligation to treat workers to a certain standard, except those laid down by the law, and neither should they. They are there to maximise profit. The only way to force them to act differently is by changes to the law. If the givernment is failing them, then lobby the government, not the corporation.

Precisely my point. You cannot simply rely on a corporation to act with morals, so legislation needs to be in place to restrict things they can and can't do. As we have no influence on the governments of those countries (which I think is much easier to justify than having no influence on corporations which practically run our country), we must use any power we have in our own countries to prevent such injustices from occurring. It seems silly to say "well corporations are obviously going to act unethically to gain profits, so we can't blame them". The entire problem is that they're obviously going to act unethically if they gain profits from it. That's my problem with capitalism anyway, it's all selfish greed at the expense of human rights, liberties and equality.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Stew

Because corporations don't have any obligation to treat workers to a certain standard, except those laid down by the law, and neither should they. They are there to maximise profit. The only way to force them to act differently is by changes to the law. If the givernment is failing them, then lobby the government, not the corporation.

Isn't that the point?
Companies don't heed moral standards they only seek to maximise profits in a capitalist society.

EDIT damn if the phone hadn't rung i'd have been in first.

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Perhaps it's because you're from Norway and I'm from Britain, but I can guarentee you a pro-violence movement here wouldn't get anywhere. It was established years ago that non-violence is required in order to appeal to the masses. The civil rights movement in America, for example, would never have got off the ground if black people had turned it into a civil war and simply started fighting all the racists in the south.

Again I think it's because you're from Norway. You saying this makes me realise how far the movements in Britain actualy did go to gain rights for these people. That's not to say everyone's attitude towards other races, women and homosexuals is up to standard, but it's certainly a minority of people who question these things. The law here states women mustn't be discriminated against with regard to equal pay and it's illegal to be racist fullstop - infact many relatively famous people have lost jobs over it in the media.

Women were given the ability to earn money at an equal standard to men. If you didn't have this freedom I think you'd realise how demoralising and difficult it was. Many do still, sadly, hold traditional views with regard to relationships and roles around the house.

Woah. You don't know your history, boy! The poll-tax rebellion, for instance, was militant as ****. If i have my facts right, wasn't that a very popular movement? Beating up bailifs is pretty violent, as is rioting..
Or your country's antifascists. In your history, there has been several pretty big streetbattles with fascists.
What about the ALF? They are also militant, even if they don't use regular violence.
All of those movements have had at least a little bit of sucsess, and been popular.
Of course, I don't live in the UK, so all I know is from books, magazines and the internett.

The civili rights movement in America was militant. Militant is not nessecary to beat up people and wear balaclavas, it's the WILL to be militant if there is a need for it. I'm not saying that every demo should be a riot, every nazi should be a bloody pulp, or every goverment official hung from a tree, it's just that if it needs to be done, it has to be done. At least if you want to see change.

Norway is pretty good when it comes to human rights, I would expect them to be far ahed of the UK, actually. Still, homosexuals are the ones that kill themselfs most often, women have the worst and most unpaid jobs, immigrants don't have any jobs at all, and druguse is really high. Racism, both stateracism and regular racism, is growing day by day. Even thought the extreme racists (Nazies, Odinists and so on) have been beaten back by the extreme-left, they are growing again, and of course, the state does not recognise the danger anymore, since they now gain political power by being racists, instead of before, when they gained political power by being antiracists.
The social diseases are huge. And we have anti-discrimination laws, women's rights, and so on.

I recognize the effort and struggle of these groups. BUT, they have managed almost nothing, exept framing things into the law. The law is not followed, of course, so that means that it's still the same shit as before. I'm not putting down the work they did, or do, but the movements have not been sucsessfull, and saying that they are is demoralizing, since there's a huge way to go.

[Nadval]

I'm not saying violence should never be used, as who am I to tell people not to defend their rights. But I strongly believe that 'we' shouldn't throw the first stone. For example I can understand someone turning violent when someone demands entrance to their house to confiscate their possessions. But initiating violence on the basis that you morally disagree with someone isn't going to get most people behind you. The civil rights movement in America at no point centred around violence and in many cases black Americans 'turned the other cheek' to racist police and citizens. If capitalists made it violent, as I suspect they would if any movement actualy got going, then I couldn't tell people they shouldn't defend themselves. But a movement which uses violence as a means of expressing beliefs isn't going to attract the masses, which is required for a reform of this scale. For example the miners strike in '84 - the miners lost a lot of sympathy as it was claimed they initiated fighting with the police (even though there's plenty of video footage and such suggesting otherwise, the media weren't on their side).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nadval

It was half joke half serious, I probably would have simply phrased it less bluntly if I was trying to make a point. I won't accuse people of being brainwashed, because it's blindingly obvious that everyone (or a very very large majorty) is, but people don't like that word so we'll use 'indoctrinated' instead. Noone doubts that people's beliefs are effected by the environment they're brought up and/or live in. What people find difficult to accept is that the environment they're surrounded by has been moulded and influenced by powerful institutions, capitalist or not, and that the larger part of their thought range is therefore determined by those powerful institutions. What I think makes some less indoctrinated than others is the acknowledgement of this 'brainwashing'. For instance, when I'm forming an opinion on something, I consider why I believe what I believe and then look for connections between that reason and things that may have effected me throughout my life, whose purpose may not be in the interest of society or humanity as a whole. I basically try and consider a lot of things before I decide what stance I take on a given issue. But it should be obvious to you I have a staggeringly low opinion of pro-capitalism and it's my thorough belief that anyone pro-capitalist is either: indoctrinated to the extent they think it's good for society, benefits from it so doesn't care, or simply doesn't care for what's morally right and wrong. I am aware this will probably annoy a few people but *shrugs* that's why I originally didn't want to go into it.

Maybe it would have been a better, in the sense of causing more productive discussions to arise, idea to have skipped over that point then. I might also believe that you have the opinions which are formed by whichever powerful institutions you're referring to (I don't incidentally) but that doesn't really contribute anything. Making staggeringly large categorisations like all people who believe p are either q,r, or s is a pretty bad idea though. To take r and s firstly we would all benefit from whatever system we believe in being implemented (maybe not materially but then I'm pro-capitalism and I wouldn't call myself excessively materialistic), and secondly other people have different moral standards to you.

The film points out many problems around the world and makes you realise the reason is capitalism. I'd like to say the film points out that it's the fundamental nature of capitalism that creates these problems but it doesn't really go very deeply into that. If you want to go into that I suggest you read Marx, he actualy predicted many problems and features that can be seen in modern capitalist societies.

I've read Marx. I'm not going to write a big long argument against the idea that capitalism causes xyz due to it's essential flaws or do something incredibly trite like ask you to go read Rand or Friedman but I would ask whether you have read any of the modern material behind capitalist thinking?

So long as you realise it's only due to popular movement and activism that you have the freedom to decide that, without you'd probably still be oppressed by us Brits and have very few freedoms. Vulnerable people with little power who're being exploited and abused need support from the wealthy, well off people who don't particularly benefit from helping them. I presume you have a similar attitude to the victims of the tsunami...?

What the hell are you talking about? Irish people had the vote under British rule. It's hardly like the scottish or welsh are such horribly oppressed minorities nowadays. I don't really have a steady income (I live at home and I make money off playing poker) but yeah I gave about 200 euro to the tsunami aid fund. The fact I think it's people right to choose doesn't mean I automatically support everyone being an asshole.

To me we do live in a totalitarian society. The ingenious thing about it is that the level of indoctrination is such that people don't realise it's a totalitarian society, or (obviously) that they're indoctrinated. How much room for anti-capitalist discussion is there in the media? How do you think the average person would react to a question on the structure of society? My opinion is they probably wouldn't have a clue, without the capacity to question power how can one ever possibly challange power? The media sets the framework for debate for 'the average person' and anything outside of that is out of the question. That, to me (as someone whose views aren't within that framework), is totalitarianism - not an extreme form, but a form nevertheless.

As dante pointed out the internet is almost impossible for anyone to control. The number of anti-capitalist viewpoints you can find on here are staggering. As internet usage is still growing I don't really find a totalitarian, thought-controlled society inevitable or even vaguely likely.

I think the point you make about politicians is more to do with the fact most people are unable to see beyond the face of what politicians are doing. That isn't a problem with democracy but rather specific to our society. I think it could be solved by a huge reform of the education system and the introduction of Government and Politics as compulsary in secondary education. Does it not seem rather odd that education in textiles, or music, or even things such as history and modern languages, is deemed more important than knowledge of how one's country is governed. I'm inclined to believe it's an example of power protecting itself and see no evidence of anything else.

I'd agree with a a more comprehensive CSPE (civic, social and political) programme being introduced, I'm unsure if you have it in the UK but it's become complusary and examined (~GCSE level) in Ireland.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Which is fair enough, but seems mildly contradictory. It's like the old Marxists who want to gloat over how great some of the Soviet's achievements were (say, in 50-60 years a relatively impoverished country putting a satellite in space before the imperial centres or whatever) but then want to say "Well, obviously I don't support the loss of freedoms", ignoring that, to an extent at least - one flows from the other and you can't easily seperate the two out.

Obviously in both cases the argument is over whether or not one is caused by something which also causes the other (as in the USSR could only put sputnik, which didn't achieve much in the long run for the proletariat, in space, by forcing a lower standard of living on people or the US only has such a high standard of living because it used slavery or aggressive anti-third world tariffs or whatever

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Yeah black Americans have it sooo good now. The reason the establishment supported Martin Luther King is because he kept the black people from rising up and really making a difference. He was a moderate. Its the same with Nelson Mandela. Thats why black Americans are still treated like shit.

a) Let us not forget that it was not primarily the establishment that 'supported' Martin Luther King. It was other black Americans.

b) I fail to see how a black uprising would have made more progress.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Saying that Corporations are just doing what the market prescribes is like saying the Mafia are just doing what the market prescribes.

I agree, and both statements are correct. The only reason political corruption (in the sense of bribery, lobbying, and the like) exists is because of imperfections in the current system where the state has more power than it should in certain areas. Likewise the only reason the mafia survives is due to the state creating black markets for it to operate within. Both are symptoms of the same disease, and neither could occur under strict capitalism.