Idk what to put here. . capitalism described by capitalists) capitalism described by socialists) socialism described by socialists) socialism described by capit Idk what to put here capitalism described by capitalists) socialists) socialism capit
Upload
Login or register

Idk what to put here

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
capitalism
described by capitalists)
capitalism
described by socialists)
socialism
described by socialists)
socialism
described by capitalists)
klil' iii (ill
libertarianism
described by libertarians)
libertarianism
described by everyone else)
anarchy
fascism
...
+1016
Views: 33327 Submitted: 01/08/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (169)
[ 169 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#3 - ILoveFurries
Reply +77 123456789123345869
(01/08/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#30 - bigredthunder
Reply +30 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
Capitalism
#18 - wyldek
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(01/08/2013) [-]
I think this post is mixing some things up. Capitalism and Socialism are primarily economic philosophies. Libertarianism, Fascism, and Anarchy are more complete philosophies, both social and economic.

For instance, most libertarians are capitalists.
#59 to #18 - KimonoDragon
-4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #100 to #59 - Ruspanic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
American libertarians would argue that liberty entails both civil AND economic liberty. European libertarianism is not necessarily the only "genuine" variety.
#108 to #100 - KimonoDragon
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #150 to #108 - Ruspanic
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
First of all, I'm sure that as a self-described libertarian you know the dangers of state control of production, but I don't see how democratic/collective control of anything is possible without some sort of de facto government. Especially on a large scale. Could you explain that to me?

Secondly, I disagree that employer-employee relationships are inherently exploitative. Most people are not able to create stable and financially-successful businesses themselves. The benefit of selling one's labor to an employer as opposed to directly to the consumer is that in the former case you have job security and don't have to invent ways to compete in the market yourself. The employer has already come up with a (probably) successful business plan and a system of organization to increase productivity beyond what you or he could accomplish individually. (Plus many employers offer health insurance coverage and similar additional benefits.)
So there's mutual benefit. The profits may not be equally distributed, but I don't see that as a problem.
Of course, if the costs of having a boss outweigh the benefits in your opinion, you're not required to work for that employer or any employer at all, in which case you'd have to try to compete on the market on your lonesome, or maybe gather some friends to help you run your own business and divide up the profits as equals. Signing an employment contract is a voluntary act that indicates you prefer that option over the alternatives.
#157 to #150 - KimonoDragon
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #162 to #157 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
A totalitarian government that you can opt out of (by quitting your job) is not much of a totalitarian government. Employees are not slaves, and employers are not all-powerful dictators. They have to pay wages and provide certain benefits and treat their employees humanely in order to have employees at all, in order to ensure maximum productivity, and in order to have a good reputation.

Here's what I meant when I said a government was necessary: there needs to be some organization of manageable size (as opposed to the entire population) that is in charge of regulating the use of public capital, ensuring that it is equally accessible to all and is well-maintained, and penalizing people who try to take public property for themselves or otherwise violate the established rules of the society. That's basically a government. Direct democracy can't work on a large scale because most people have neither the time nor the expertise to run it effectively. There'd also be tyranny of the majority or even tyranny of a minority, if voter turnout is low - and if voting is required, how could that be enforced? Indeed, how could anything be enforced without a governing body, except by angry mobs or vigilantes?
#174 to #162 - KimonoDragon
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#159 to #157 - wyldek
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
I have always thought that socialism is far more economically constrictive than capitalism. No matter what, the ability to choose what to own of your own volition is more "free" than just accepting what some higher authority deems to give you.

And yes, while your employer/job/capitalism may limit your buying power, it doesn't limit your buying CHOICE, and choice is what liberty is all about.
#161 to #159 - KimonoDragon
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #163 to #161 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
"money that you have is only a fraction of what you should have, while all the rest is robbed from you"

I have a major problem with this sort of reasoning. You aren't entitled to have things. Being poorer than others does not mean that you have been robbed, or that others are wealthy at your expense.

Ownership of private property is not oppression, it's just ownership. Owning a factory or a plot of land is no different from owning a house or a car or a laptop.
As long as there aren't monopolies on the means of production, exchange is still voluntary and therefore ethical.
#169 to #163 - KimonoDragon
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#178 to #169 - KimonoDragon
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#176 to #169 - KimonoDragon
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #31 to #18 - srskate
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
I think it was just "comprehensive."
It wanted more of a joke than just Capitalism and Socialism, so it moved on to other subjects.
#62 - vladhellsing
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
#89 to #62 - darkjustifier
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
#44 - puccypirateisback **User deleted account**
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
Communism is best system.
#58 to #44 - anon id: a2ec7359
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
That's a member of the US Navy...
User avatar #37 - sausydangles
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
I like libertarianism in both cases. Unless the other guy sneezes or something
#38 to #37 - anon id: 0a433d4d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
trigger pull mate. I don't think anyone could sneeze so hard they'd pull a trigger.

that and maintaining proper discipline.
User avatar #40 to #38 - sausydangles
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
Well if they were being safe with their firearms they would at least keep their fingers off the triggers until they were ready to fire. So it could be a moot point but you never know
#20 - anon id: 9fadbcd0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/08/2013) [-]
i was going to make this rant about people who think anarchy equals chaos, but **** it why bother, too many kids to try to educate them all, google it.

Read first, then talk.
User avatar #32 to #20 - famouswillqc **User deleted account**
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
I agree with you. Before i believed Anarchy was chaos until one of my friend brought me to an anarchist book-fair and i bought 3 books about it and i now agree with most of anarchist principles.
#84 to #20 - KimonoDragon
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#29 to #20 - bigredthunder
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
User avatar #28 to #20 - biomedic
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
Sorry we're not worth your breath, your highness.
User avatar #39 to #20 - Crusader
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
Anarchy is the absence of government or law, which will inevitably lead to chaos.
#42 to #39 - anon id: 5d73dfcf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
just look at detroit!
#65 to #39 - KimonoDragon
-3 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #165 to #65 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
No, anarchy is by definition the absence of government and laws
allowing for people to do what they want, when they want
Thereby leading to chaos.
#170 to #165 - KimonoDragon
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #175 to #170 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
Anarchy
As stated in the english dictionary.
an·ar·chy [an-er-kee] Show IPA
noun
1.
a state of society without government or law.
2.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

That means, anarchy by definition is the absence of law or government.
Because if there is a governmnet, then there is a hierarchy, there is someone that in some way rules over you.
Laws rule over you, therefore, for there to be TRUE ANARCHY there can be NO LAWS.
If you prevent people from doing what they want, when they want, then you are ruling over them, and therefore it is not anarchy.
There is a reason that Anarchy is synonymous, because there is no way you can have a system of life where nothing is ruling over the people, and not have chaos.
If you were a anarchist, as you claim, you would realize this.
#177 to #175 - KimonoDragon
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#41 - mkchillin
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
The way I see it, all people should inherently know that to get ANYTHING in life, they have to earn it, which is why I can't stand the idea of welfare, entitlements, etc. You reap what you sow, and if you put a lot into something, you'll get a lot out.
#53 to #41 - KimonoDragon
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #50 to #41 - illegalartist
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
i believe in equal opportunity
User avatar #45 to #41 - gammajk
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
I agree, except some people simply never got an opportunity to get a decent education required to actually accomplish anything. That's why I think the welfare system should be revamped to give assistance to people in the form of education and jobs, not trivial money handouts.
User avatar #47 to #45 - mkchillin
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
I was gonna say food stamps but that is fine too. I just don't understand the point of literally giving money to people.
User avatar #2 - jizzonmypants
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(01/08/2013) [-]
I'll go with Libertarianism
User avatar #52 - imvexx
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(01/09/2013) [-]
Fascism looks pretty good, i'm getting real sick of all the **** caused by Reds.