Art said:
You misunderstand me. I am very conscious of the fact that many people in the world do not have these basics but my point was that the vast majority of people living in western capitalist democratic societies do. Trade barriers which continue to suppress poor nations are in fact a socialist mechanism, true capitalism believes in a totally free market.
Those so-called "trade barriers" are the only thing between those people and total exploitation beyond repair. A totally free market will only better allow these exploitations to happen. Tell me Art, why is it, do you think, that when El Salvador was in such a dire strait of poverty they had a socialist revolution and the first thing they did was to put up trade barriers and kick out western corporations that were exploiting them? Why is it, do you think, that as soon as this happened the quality of life, hell the chance of surviving the week, rose dramatically. And why is it, do you think, that these people were so happy about it and cheering in the street. (No, it's not propoganda, these people couldn't afford food, what medium do you really think they'd have to be barraged with the level of propoganda required to do that?
What do you think, Art?
If people don't like the company they work for they can vote with their feet and leave. Unless everybody gets crammed into the office on the 100th floor then there is always going to be some with more power than others.
I quote myself:
Smurf said:
Because everything is owned by guys in 100th floor the worker does not have the option of going somewhere else where he does get a say.
The reason I put that in there is because I knew that line would be said by someone. It's the most common response to any unfairness pointed out in the system. The point is there is no where else to go. We're trapped here.
I wanted to be an anarchist. A true anarchist. But I've been reduced to being a political anarchist because
I CAN'T AFFORD TO BE AN ANARCHIST IN THIS SOCIETY. There are people, off the coast of BC, living on islands in the middle of no where who raise their own sheep, make their own clothes, grow their own food. Totally self-sustainable. They've been there since the 50s-60s when that kind of thing was possible because that land didn't cost millions of dollars per sq meter. Now-a-days it's all owned by richies and celebrities who bring their big yachts and motorboats up there for summer vacations, cause huge noise pollution, causes enviromental problems, scares fish, ect. They disrupt their lives, make it incredibly hard to live like that. These people don't have any money to prosecute with, they don't want to, they just want to be left alone. THE SYSTEM DOESN'T ALLOW IT any more than the system allows a worker to choose it's employer. Employers don't go around looking for workers, if you need a job you run around town asking people, filtering through ads, blah blah blah. No one comes to you wanting to hire you, you go to them. No one competes for workers, that's bull****.
I would love nothing more than to live on my own island and be totally cut off from the capitalist world. The capitalist world doesn't allow it. You have to be a millionaires to be able to do that, and only people who play the game, and play it well, get to be millionaires.
The system is expansive, no one is allowed to live outside it without being harmed unless the people on which the system relies fight back.
There is no record in history of a socialist country ever coming to power and existing for any amount of time
what so ever, without violent, aggressive intervention from capitalist countries. Russian expedition, Cuban Embargo, Brazilian Death Squads, Guatemalan bombing. None, ever. Socialism has forever been under attack since it's first conception from the dominant powers. And yet we criticize them for taking away individual rights. What democracy or capitalist country has not also taken away rights at times of war and distress? By comparison these socialist countries have allowed amazing amounts of rights to remain considering many in the past had spent their entire lives at war or under aggression be it economic, diplomatic or militaristic. How dare we critisize them, let alone from a North American continent that it it's self has never even been
bombed let alone invaded or embargoed from anywhere, how dare we, from our positions of huge countries with limitless resources and who have always been banks of the world, How dare we critisize them who have done nothing more than try to make a better world for their citizens to earn our aggression under the guise of a "Communist Threat".
What did guatemala, the socialist republic of some thousands of people who's main export was banana's pose as a "threat" to
us. Us, especially those americans who have had among the largest navy and air force in the world to protect them for centuries and hardly ever lost a war let alone been attacked them selves.
Furthermore, why is it that socialist dictatorships have and have alone been targeted by foreign intervention. Why has Burma, the most oppressive regime in the world and the only (i think) country in the world where the internet is illegal to the majority. (Who here has ever met a burmian on the net?), Why? BECAUSE THEY ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO EXPLOIT THEIR POOR. Socialist countries don't recognize private ownership, let alone allow them to be owned by the imaginary entity that has so much power in our own world.
There's nothing wrong with someone having more power than another, but why do we have to make it easier for the powerfull to remain powerfull and the unpowerfull to remain unpowerfull? There's a word for that, it's called a caste system. I'm thuroughly digusted by the "trickle down" theory that the poor get scrapes from the rich, so the best way to help them is to give the rich bigger plates. It's stupid, and descriminatory.
Art, not all of this is directed at you, I'm just letting it all out.
Far from doing no wrong I believe capitalism needs to be constantly reviewed, checked and balanced as per the examples I gave in my response to Alex's post I just happen to believe that the system in the medium to long term is self correcting.
I have yet to see anybody suggest a better viable system. If they do then I'm sure most people including me would embrace it.
There have been many other systems suggested, and tried in parts of the world, the problem is that people brand them all "Socialist" because ignorant westerners think that Capitalism is on one end of a scale and Communism on the other and anything that is similar with Marxism must be the same thing. Or at the least, still worse. Because there is this 'blind faith' that Capitalism will work always and that no changes need to be made (Real changes, not addressing minor problems in a few regulations)
Tell me art, what is wrong with
Anarcho-syndicalism, or
Green Anarchism (that's me)? What is so wrong about it that's preventing people from jumping all over it?
I have no option but to wait and see... oh, except that it's useful to talk about these ideas and get people to think. That's about as much as I can do. I enjoy these discussions/exchanges - even if ultimately they don't achieve much 
