The Economist: Oh capitalism, why you so evil?

Why socialists have the remarkable gift of being deliriously hilarious

It is lovely to see the community relapse back in what it does best: the almighty fight between Communism/Socialism and Capitalism. Great, the reader will say, what’s new. Well not much really, but there is one article which was so ridiculous I just had to write one of my own.

But let’s take a step back and go in order. On the 14th Jonathan of Austenasia presented his nation’s new guiding ideology: Theodorism. It’s a sort of communism with a monarch, which of course is peculiar given that it sanctions a distinction in class which is at odds with Marx’s thought. The policy is also vague in many of areas but openly contradictory when you confront the proposals with Article XII of the Austenasian Constitution of 2011.

Putting this aside, let’s check out the replies that really inflamed the situation. Daniel Anderson published a heartfelt defense of Sirocco’s “capitalist roots”, not that Jonathan’s policy has any influence on Sirocco’s system. But the best post prize definitely goes to the article on the Zealandian Times. It exemplified the sort of tactics used by some micronational socialists when discussing this issue.

First, it called Anderson “a serial capitalist”, as if it were a crime, like in the good old days of the USSR. But the best is to come. The article proceeds to launch itself in an incredible array of statements on the supposed evils of capitalism. Here are a few, for your entertainment.

“Capitalism causes wars” – Pinning down wars on a single economic ideology which has been around for about 300 years is just ridiculous.

“Capitalism causes poverty” – which is why the first 50 nations by GDP per capita at power-purchasing parity (PPP) are all market-based, while the last 50 are all socialist or ex-socialist nations. It is also why the top 30 countries by average wage are all capitalist. It is also why in developing countries which have experienced Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) following central planning (China, India) wages have risen. It is also why South Korea and India, who had the same GDP in 1950 but chose different economic paths, now have similar GDPs per capita right? Oh wait they don’t.

“Capitalism causes famines” – Interesting. Droughts and crop failures don’t cause famines. Nor does state intervention, like Mao’s 1958 Great Leap Forward (18-33 million dead) or North Korea’s 1990s Ardous March (1-3.5 million dead).

“Capitalism causes genocide” – Very interesting. Not communism, mind you. Even though the bourgeoisie must be annihilated, as Marx wrote in the Manifesto, and as such communism espouses the destruction of a group of people, based on class rather than ethnicity. Class is not listed in the official UN definition because the USSR vetoed its inclusion (no prizes for guessing why). Not to forget the Holodomor, the cynical, planned hunger killing of 2.4 to 7.5 million Ukrainians from 1932 to 1933 by order of Stalin. And forget about the Khmer Rouge, I mean, in 4 years they only managed to kill about 2 million people, a trifling 20% of Cambodia population.

“Capitalism causes greed”- Greed is one of the seven deadly sin of Christianity, surely pre-dating Capitalism.

“Capitalism caused children in coalmines” – It is estimated practically all children worked in agriculture before the Industrial Revolution. The move towards children being sent to school came once their parents earned enough in the factories to send them there.

“Capitalism causes radiation death” – Yup, oh those damn capitalists at Chernobyl! Not to mention what are thousands upon thousands of unreported cases in socialist countries of incidents similar to the “Radium Girls” of 1917 in the US.

“Capitalism causes Fascism/Nazism” – It is always healthy to remember that Fascism and Capitalism are in fact antipodean; and that economically (and in most aspects really, although commies beg to differ) it is in fact very similar to socialism, with its stress on statalism.

“Capitalism causes militarism” – Of course, of course.

“Capitalism caused the massacre of the Paris Commune” – What the hell?! Absolutely not! Read a history book, for God’s sake! It was the Prussians.

“Capitalism caused production lines” – Indeed this it has, well done on getting something right! Exactly where the problem lies, considering they have increased production, wages and standards of living exponentially, is yet to be seen.

“Capitalism caused the death of 50 million communists” – Probably the best statement of the whole lot. Can’t you see the bullshit oozing through your screen? Perhaps what was intended was the amount of people killed by communism in its various forms, which indeed is something around that figure.

In general, these kinds of articles suffer from two main problems. Firstly, a historical revisionism that leads them to magically forget the heinous crimes committed in the name of socialism and communism. Capitalism does cause some crimes, but unlike Socialism, it does not require them in order to function.

Secondly, while capitalism has many faults, most problems I haven’t specifically commented on are, unfortunately, by-products of economic growth. Of course, action must be taken to limit them, but it is unreasonable to assume capitalist private-led industrial growth is somehow different from socialist state-led industrial growth.

In conclusion, dear Mr. Hakon, before lambasting someone for expressing his political and economic views, please heed my advice. Avoid spewing a long list of absolutely ridiculous claims. It surely won’t help the proletariat take over the world.

13 Responses to “The Economist: Oh capitalism, why you so evil?”
  1. siroccotimes says:

    All points agreed with.

  2. Souranply says:

    Excellent and educated article. It is nice to see that some people know what they are talking about. Hopefully the socialists will start reading this so they can either convert to an intelligent ideology or provide a decent debate.

  3. It’s articles like these which enflame such debates even more. I didn’t start some big ideological conflict, that was Mr. Anderson when he started insulting myself and my ideology out of the blue. Theodorism was developed specifically for implementation within the Empire – just like with the civil war, I published information on it because that’s the purpose of a wiki, not to have other people come and get involved. I also don’t see how any Theodorist concept contradicts with Article XII of the Constitution – the human rights guaranteed by said article are actually advocated by Theodorism, not in conflict with it.
    Neither capitalism or communism is perfect, but at least socialism tries to help those in need (and also has a much better chance of working in a small nation such as Austenasia) whereas capitalism adovocates profit, profit, and profit, with alleviating poverty a secondary concern.
    (By the way, for future reference, it’s “zer”, not “his”.)

  4. Souranply says:

    Purely believing that capitalism is for profit proves you know nothing of it and didn’t even have the courtesty to pay attention to our debate awhile ago. I wonder why I even try knock sense into you socialists, you just don’t listen to anyone. Read up on the subject and then come back either with common sense or a better arguement.

    • Capitalism advocates a free market, with no government regulation – lassaiz faire. Without government regulation, people will naturally look simply to make profits. Yes, you get quite a few philanphropists, but the vast majority of people will, if given the chance, merely try to make as much money for themselves as possible.

      • Duke of Dullahan says:

        No it doesnt, your argueing about Lassaiz Fair Capitalism, there are many forms of Capitalism. So this is plain bullshit.

  5. secundomia says:

    I loled at the “damn capitalists in chernobyl” part. And pretty much the rest of this article. Well done!

  6. Duke of Dullahan says:

    Economic Liberalism believes that through the greed of the baker, he will make bread to earn money or become rich, this however is beneficial for the others, they need bread to feed themselfs. Eventualy a new bakery will come and they will have a quality/quantity/price war and so the quality and quantity will rise and the price will go down, wich in turn is beneficial for the workers and poor. So greed is working in favour of the poor.

    However, small regulations, say guidelines and gamerules with the government as a refferee, we can make sure that the free market will run well. If someone breaks the rules the Government will intervene.

    Now to bash socialism;

    Everyone needs to wake up. Greed is in every human being. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need… means only one thing:

    I take as much as i can and contribute as little as possible, and why should i work? I gain nothing for it!

    See. Socialism isnt logical.

  7. I’d like to say one quick remark. The seven deadly sins are not mandate in Christianity. Rather, they were made up by some guy in the early 2nd millennium. The laws that are to be followed are the Ten Commandments.

  8. Just wanted to make a few things clear.

    Jonathan: I’m sure you’ve appreciated that the main thrust of my article is not Theodorism (I dealt briefly with that in the second paragraph) but rather a chance to have a good laugh about some ridiculous claims on the Zealandian Times, which happen to be indirectly connected to your ideology.
    As side note, I’m not sure what you mean with using “zer” instead of “his”. If it has something to do with the sentence “his nation’s ideology”, I think I will stick to plain English, thank you.

    Mr. Salapa: I don’t really see the point of your comment, we’re not discussing theology here. I never said the seven sins are mandatory and in fact you are wrong, the seven sins can be traced back to King Solomon and have appeared in their familiar form since 590, when Pope Gregory I compiled the list.

    To everyone else: thank you for your comments, it is refreshing to see not everyone here is a Socialist, as that is definitely the idea I got when I first entered the community! 😉


  9. Reblogged this on To Whom it May Concern and commented:
    Capitalism, a Love Story

Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] A response to The Economist: Oh capitalism, why you so evil? […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: