Capitalism Is...
 

Link

This quiz has shown me the error of my ways!

Did you know that making rich people help out the less-fortunate is slavery? I didn't! But now I do.

But but Kim, it allows men to be rational and virtuous!

Socialism actually outlaws both of those traits in men.

Don't even ask about Communism.

This website looks like it was authored by someone who read 1984 and thought The Party was virtuous.

Edit: except IIRC The Party pretended to be socialist. Hilariously I forgot about Ayn Rand.

Also amused by how there's no mention of the global impact of capitalism.

I ain't even got time to be funny about this.
 

I got as far as "Capitalism is the only social system that does not advocate institutionalized slavery" before I had to tap out. Since apparently "institutionalized slavery" is both totally way different and way worse than the ACTUAL slavery encouraged by capitalism throughout history.

Probably since the latter didn't usually involve enslaving white people.

But POS, if you don't take the quiz you'll never learn how Truly Great capitalism is!

Help guys
I'm getting every answer incorrect
And I'm being told I'm a fascist-socialist-communist!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All three?! The most dastardly fiend of all. I thought I knew you, Snake.

I thought I knew you...

It seems we have a snake in our midst...

I'm not apologizing for that pun-ish abomination, either.

Oh man, did you guys check out the authors?
They do website design, and have a code of ethics.

Edit:
Man i don't know this code of ethics is pretty problematic

By, as a company, subscribing to the idea of human right, you are not only infringing upon the personal liberty of those artists under your employ who wish to disregard human rights, you are also perpetuating the idea of a "common good" which represents a tyranny upon the smallest minority of all: The individual.
You are an anarchic commu-facist who shares common ancestry with Adolf Hitler.

I wish I could remember the exact quote, but was something like. No system is perfect. no matter what you will have those that corrupt and abuse it.

Thats why we have a mixed economy. Any pure system is a living hell so you have to use abit of each to keep things in check. Of course you will still have unfairness no matter what but you can mitigate it.

That was one of the things I liked about Bioshock. It didn't get too into how a purely capitalist society would suck because that was relatively minor. It was about how easy it is for someone to corrupt and abuse that system. Not everyone is gonna play by your rules and your rules make it very hard to do anything about it when someone is cheating.

Though I guess in that example it was the other aspects of objectivism that stopped him. In capitalism alone you could still like, just hire someone to kill the trouble maker like in feudal societies. Ok now I'm just rambling because I realize how much you can get off tangent. I dont think we have ever had a nation thats purely any system. Even communist nations have touches of capitalism and of course on a global scale its nearly pure capitalism because there is so little international oversight.

In fairness, I am totally pro-socialism.

"Everyone should have a right to own a deadly weapon with the sole utility of killing folks."
"THAT'S RIGHT."

"Everybody should have a right to employment."
"HOW DARE YOU IMPOSE AN OBLIGATION UPON BUSINESSES AND JOB CREATORS?!?"

Pure socialism isn't really viable in a scarcity based economy. We DONT have enough for everyone. Be it space, jobs, energy, food, water, recreational products, ect.

Now if we solve the energy crisis and get molecular assemblers ok then we can start talking about heavier socialist ideals.

As a disclaimer I'm speaking from someone in a developed nation where food and water and space are plentiful enough that even the poor can atleast sustain themselves* and we are mostly competing over things. I'm sure there are regions where a more socialist system is preferable. Maybe China is better off as a communist nation, I dont know, i dont live there.

*by poor I mean those holding jobs with our socialist programs in place like minimum wage, food stamps, ect. As I said we aren't pure capitalist and it would suck if we were

Welp, I'm a fascist-socialist-communist-Marxist.

Am I the only one who answered all the questions "correctly" (that is, clicked no every time) just to check what it tells you then? It still says you need to "study of the foundations and characteristics of liberty and genuine rights".

Much of existing scarcity is the result of capitalism.

I don't need to answer this to know I'm a terrorist according to them. But a terrorist pretty much only is an idealist that's not on your own side, so... time to blow up monuments to capitalism.

Man, this quiz has got me all figured out.

Hey Aero, like I'm going to start you off easy here and tell you to watch this:



Look it's quite obvious from all of this that you don't really have that much of an idea what socialism, communism, marxism etc. actually are and actually advocate. I linked the above video, because I've found it to be a fairly good initial introduction whose purpose isn't just to educate but to also convince people.

But isn't the definition of socialism "Whatever sinister things American propagandists say it is?"

The definition of socialism is that I want to eventually steal your money because I'm a selfish and greedy bum!

How do you figure that? We have finite resources both physical and abstract like time, energy, and labor, but an infinite desire for them.

We have an infinite desire for physical resources?
Damn, I didn't realize I was so greedy, what with my need for an infinite amount of energy to access the internet every day.

EDIT: I can't even comprehend how it'd be physically possible. Attempting to eat an infinite amount of food would kill you. And an overabundance of everything would reap diminishing happiness gains until you simply stopped giving a shit when you got more stuff. Beyond that, I can't say I have a particular desire to become immortal (though living longer than a century would be nice, eventually society would evolve so much I'd be incapable of progressing with it even if aging halted.)

Well, we do. Certain resources are bound to run out before we sop wanting them. Oil, for example.

And where does that desire come from? And why are we living in a system that produces for profit and not for use? There exists an over production of certain products and an under production of others.

The problem there isn't that oil is scarce, it's more that oil is so cheap that we're not bothering to properly invest in appropriately available renewable energy resources that would cost marginally more cents for each watt of power we got.

We could convert to wind, solar, biofuels, you name it. We'd all be poorer for it, but we'd still have more than enough. Also our grandkids would have a planet to inherit! That'd be nice.

Oh my fucking god these "allegories" are hilariously ridiculous. HEY GUYS FEDERAL SUBSIDIZING OF HEALTHIER FOODS TO PROMOTE BETTER DIETS IS TYRANNICALLY OPPRESSING THE RIGHTS OF SHITTY FOOD MAKERS TO FAIRLY DESTROY OUR BODIES IN A COMPETITVE MARKET.

BECAUSE SPORTZ! ::V:

Man, I really wish we would.

How are fuel cells for cars coming along, anyway? Or was the idea of cars whose exhaust is so much water vapor always a pipe dream?

you are confusing the representation of cost, money, with what it actually represents, value.

Solar costs more because the resources to energy ratio is lower than that of oil. It takes labor, physical materials, space, and energy to build solar panels and drill for oil. Money is merely a unit of measurement for these abstract concepts. For the same amount of resources to create a solar panel you can extract oil which wields a far higher return. Before you say solar panels are a long term investment they do require upkeep and its more expensive than you might think. Not to mention space. The square footage that would be eaten up by enough solar panels to supply us with all our power would be insane.

you mean hydrogen fuel cells? Because that was the only one that produced water as a by-product. At the moment it is because it takes more energy to extract the hydrogen than what burning it outputs.

We get hydrogen usually by electrolysis, which on a chemical level works by introducing energy to cause an endothermic reaction of separating hydrogen from oxygen from water. But then we have law of conservation of energy. That energy we get from burning that hydrogen with oxygen is equal to the energy we put in to separate them in the first place. Of course we dont have 100% efficiency so we still get a net loss.

I'm gonna throw out that all these things would be much further along than they are were it not for the superrich having vested interests in preventing that. The same goes for the efficiency of oil-reliant cars, too. Capitalism is actively stalling progress.

Not true. It would take something like 10% of the paved surfaces in the US covered with solar panels to power the entire grid (assuming we had somewhere to store the excess). We could easily do that with just parking lots/structures if someone cared to pay for the panels. The real problem is the base load and efficient storage of the excess for power during cloudy days and over night.

Which is why we (me included which is really awesome) are working on artificial photosynthesis. More specifically photocatalytic hydrolysis using mostly oxide semiconductors. You get hydrogen directly from sunlight and water which is pretty awesome.

For example, there was a law enacted after the first oil crises that required increasing fuel efficiency from cars on a regular schedule which the car companies were meeting. If that trend had continued the average car today would be getting 60 mpg on the low end of the scale. Instead the law was repealed and fuel efficiency actually backslid for years.

And what is value? It certainly isn't some magical quality bestowed upon a resource by the virtue of it existing.

e: Like how about it if we change the system so that we don't have to deal with all this shit that makes capitalism fail.

This is relevant, albeit also something the oil and coal industry doesn't want anyone to know about.

Then of course there's similar wind projects like Cape Wind, which has stalled out for over a decade now because Rich NIMBY Asshole Landowners are Fucking Assholes

It's pretty hilarious how people think capitalism incentivises development when it actually demonstrably incentivises waste. If you make an invention that improves things you are failing at capitalism.

I actually thought I was passing this quiz when I answered the first one "correctly" but then there was the one about the racing organization wanting to encourage vegetarianism so they let vegetarian racers start 20 meters ahead of meat-eaters and I was all like "PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS CAN SET WHATEVER STANDARDS FOR RACING THEY WANT!" and was all "THIS IS SO FAIR MAN!" but they were all like "NO THAT IS NOT FAIR" and I was all like "WHAAAAAA".

They wanted to encourage Vegetarianism by giving vegetarians a head start?! Eat your vegetables and you'll get corporate benefits on track and field? What?!

CAPITALISM BITCHES

I got all the questions wrong without even trying. Kind of had a feeling what they wanted me to answer, and then I went the other way. Contrarianism: At least it's better than unchecked capitalism.

There is a link to a bunch of Ayn Rand shit. This website is totally representative of Capitalism.

I mean, what else was gonna happen with a system that produces for profit instead on needs?