>>67912
>May as well be true. Wars and environmental damage have already been disastrous
> Government action such as war is capitalism
I was fairly certain that this was something that didn't need much explanation, but I suppose not. Along with this was a bit of bitter irony that struck while reading the rest of your posts.
> That flag
> That image.
You are aware that the USSR, China and other Communist/Socialist countries got into just as many, if not more wars than the United States during their period of existence, correct? Estonia, Latvia, the invasions of the rest of the Baltic nations, the suppression of the Ukrainian anarchists, an attempted invasion of Finnland (which albeit failed miserably), do none of these ring a bell? As for the environment, the Soviet governments had done more damage to the environment than any capitalist could do, one quick search of the Aral sea, the water in Sochi show the results whereas in Capitalism people are incentivized to pollute less simply because it costs more money to do the opposite and they are more incentivized to find ways to use waste as a means to profit. This ironically reminds me of the vehicles that the Soviet Union produced, which copied Western designs but were significantly inferior in performance and polluted far more.
> Renewable energy isn't developed purely out of a profit motive, it requires massive subsidies from the government for corporations to do so.
But that's a half-truth at best, it is true that the government subsidizes renewable energy, but this has led to two main problems; A.) It's ended up making feasible renewable energy to be a much more expensive alternative to normal energy in it's costs and B.) that the government has subsidized inefficient ways of producing energy (such as solar, which takes so much work to produce a fraction of what other forms of energy can produce and takes more resources than it purports to preserve). This isn't even mentioning the government's virtual shutdown of modern Nuclear energy (which surprisingly actually produces far less radiation than coal plants do at full functioning, I shit you not. I was surprised too).
>True. When the rate of profit reaches zero, there will be no more investments, start-ups or entrepreneurs. You'd literally have to wait for a war or a similar catastrophe to get the business cycle running again.
That's not actually how any of this works, at all.
> White settler bought off land from people who didn't have a concept of modern private property and then deported them.
Holy shit, are you a high school student? I'm amused by the fact that some people still believe that Native Americans somehow didn't understand private property. No, Native American tribes by and large completely understood private property rights, and more often than not they either sold their land and full well knew the implications and did so out of various reasons, or they had their land stolen from them (although theft of their lands did become less common as time went on, the implementation of the Dawes act made things much worse and caused a small war during the late 1800s to the 1920s, which was an attempt by the Indian tribes to protect their private property). Even then your next statement was funny.
> While that's not fully developed capitalism it sure is capitalistic.
Theft is capitalistic now? That's amusing, might as well label the USSR as a capitalist country now, private property rights be damned. It's almost like you call anything you don't like "capitalism", now isn't that amusing?
> I mean, look at Hawaii: Mark Zuckerberg wants to ban native Hawaiians from accessing his 5 miles of private beach. "Not real capitalism"? Come on guys…
I'm beginning to seriously doubt that you know anything about what you're talking about and that you're just pulling your vague understanding of recent events out of your ass and twisting it so that it fits your narrative. What Zuckerberg did was essentially disregard the property rights of those who already lived on the land due to the government's incompetence in regards to the private ownership of the people in Hawaii (which mind you, the governments shouldn't even be involved with in the first place). Now that's not to say that a good portion of the land he bought wasn't abandoned land but a good chunk of what he bought was still owned by other people and more over he tried to sue them into selling the land to him, that is until he dropped all of that when his consumers basically called him out of on his shit. Isn't it great when people are actually held accountable for their actions by their consumers? Come on guys…