Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The supremacy of capitalism
sniperg
Member Posts: 863
Let's see first of all what doesn't constitute a capitalistic crisis.
1) The fact that 950 million people suffer from famine is not a capitalist crisis.
2) The fact that there are 4,75 billion poor people all over the world is not a capitalist crisis.
3) The fact that over 50% of the international, economical active population is working under dangerous conditions, is not a capitalist crisis.
4) The fact that 45% of the world population doesn't have access to drinking water is not a capitalist crisis.
5) The fact that 3 billion people don't have access to basic health care is not a capitalist crisis.
6) The fact that 113 million children don't have access to education and 875 million adults are illeterate that doesn't make it a capitalist crisis.
7) The fact that 12 million kids die every year from curable diseaces, that's not a capitalist crisis.
8) The fact that 13 million people die every year because of the pollution of the envirroment, that's not a capitalist crisis.
These things were happening before the crisis. So what capitalist crisis means? When does one start?
We are talking about a capitalist crisis, when the 950 million people that are hungry, the 4.75 billion people that are poor, the 45% of the total population is without drinking water and without health services 50% of them, the helpless kids and the decimation of the envirroment, doesn't generate enough profit for 1000 multinational companies and 2,5 million multimillionaires.
The thing that shows the inherent superior efficiency and resistance of capitalism, is that all these human disasters, disasters that would prove the disastrous inefficiency of any other system, have no effect on its credibility neither obstruct it in working with intense speed.
It's that mechanical indifference that makes capitalism natural, indestructible, necessary.
Socialism wouldn't be able to survive this indifference to the human nature, like it didn't survive in the soviet union, because it was designed to satisfy the needs of human existence. Capitalism survives and even reinforces itself with human suffering, because it didn't appear throughout history to sooth them.
No other historical system generated more wealth and no other generated more disaster. All we have to do is follow these two lines , the line of wealth and the line of disaster, to realise it's value and greatness.
This double duty, that capitalism manages to fullfill better than anything and its success is irreversible. And this success sides with the fact that there is more food but also more hunger, more medicine and more sick people, more work and more jobless people, more books and even more iletterate people, more human rights and even more crimes against humanity.
The solutions that are being suggested and used by the governments, are perpetuating the inherent with capitalism logic of enlargement of profit as condition of natural survival: privatisation of public goods, elongation of time of work, freedom in laying offs , reduction of social expenses, exemptions for the businessmen.
So, if things aren't going well, it is because things are not going worse. It means that if the 950 million of hungry people are not enough to guarantee enough profit, that number would be required to be doubled. Capitalism is counting on it, before the crisis it condemns in poverty 4,75 billions human existences. In times of crisis, and in order to come out from this, we only can increase the percentage of profit by increasing the number of its victims.
The problem is not the crisis of capitalism but capitalism itself. In a world with a lot of wars and few ideas, with a lot of pain and little organisation, with a lot of fear and little commitment -in the world that gave birth to capitalism- savagery is much more likely than in socialism.
Comments and suggestios as always are very welcome:)
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Comments
what is this?
http://helpourfuture.blogspot.com/
save our future.
It's an article I will present in my class for discussion in a few days, so I thought it would be nice if I would get some extra opinions on the matter.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Something about your essay is not coming across correctly. Something in the style is not portraying your point. Now, I'm not going to get into the merits of the discussion or any disagreement I have, but I think you need to rethink how you are presenting the information.
As I read the essay, I feel that it should be a speech (which may be the intent). That being the case, I feel like I jumped in and started listening at the middle of the speech as there is no real introduction into the topic. So, having the list at the begining feels unnatural and without context. After the initial list, the body of the text is made up of what feel like "talking points" with no cohesion beyond their individual relevence to a particular subject in your beginning list.
Last, your conclusion does not feel supported by your essay body by anything substantial. You make your point, but to what end? Anyhow, I think you need to rethink how you have written this essay or you are going to get glassy-eyed stares.
Yes it is a speech essay, sorry for forgetting to mention that, and it will be presented to british students.
I have also an more conventional introduction instead of the list, but I wanted to check if this worked better instead.
Thanks for your points Dae.
I am not really used in writing long essays in English and French so it seems I would need to edit it more:)
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.