Society and Culture

Anti-capitalism: trendy but wrong


You can’t escape it; capitalism has a bad rap.

Last night, thousands of anti-capitalist protestors took to the streets in capital cities across the world. Wearing V for Vendetta-inspired Guy Fawkes masks (most of which are made in China), these self-styled “anti-establishment” demonstrators, who took part in annual Million Mask March, sought to express their dissatisfaction with the capitalist system and the unfair outcomes it allegedly creates. Large anti-capitalist protests like those we saw last night are, of course, nothing unusual. In August, French police resorted to using water cannons and tear gas to disperse thousands of anti-capitalist demonstrators who were protesting in the French coastal town of Bayonne, during the G7 summit which was taking place in a nearby resort.

But it is not just during protests that we see disdain for capitalism. All over our newspapers there are headlines such as, “Capitalism is in crisis,” “Capitalism is failing,” or most recently “Capitalism is dead,” – the latter being a recent quote from billionaire Salesforce CEO, Marc Benioff, who amassed his fortune thanks to the capitalist system.

The consistent bombardment of capitalism in our media and on our streets has culminated in a recent YouGov poll showing that nearly half of all Millennials and Gen-Z’ers hold an unfavourable view of capitalism. The same poll also found that more than 70 percent of Millennials would likely vote for a socialist candidate.

It is fundamentally trendy to be socialist, and to decry the alleged ills of capitalism. But does this persistent condemnation of capitalism hold up to scrutiny?

Every year, the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank publishes its Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) report in order to find out which countries have the freest (i.e. most capitalist) economies. The EFW ranks the level of freedom of 162 economies, using 43 indices, across major policy areas: size of government, legal systems and property rights, sound money, freedom to trade internationally, and regulation.

The idea behind the EFW report is that if you can find out which countries have the most capitalist economies, you can then use this information to see if more capitalist countries have better outcomes for their citizens when compared to their more socialist (or at least: less capitalist) counterparts. To analyse the correlation between economic freedom and human wellbeing, the EFW splits the 162 economies into quartiles, based on their level of economic freedom. And the results are staggering.

The average income in the most capitalist quartile of countries is an astonishing 6 times higher, in real terms, than the average income in the least capitalist economies ($36,770 and $6,140 respectively). For the poorest in society, this gap widens even more. The bottom 10 percent of income earners in the most capitalist countries make, on average, 7 times more than the poorest 10 percent in the least free economies. Similarly, more than 27 percent of people in the most socialist economies live in extreme poverty (as defined by the World Bank as an income of less than $1.90 a day), whereas just 1.8 percent of people in freest economies live in extreme poverty – a figure that is still too high (the optimal number is zero), but vastly better than the level that persists in the least free countries.

Economic measures aside, people living in the most capitalist countries also live on average 14 years longer, have an infant mortality rate 6 times lower, enjoy greater political and civil liberties, gender equality, and to the extent you can measure such things, greater happiness too – when compared to the least capitalist economies.

Take Hong Kong, for example, which is the world’s freest economy according the EFW report. In 1941, journalist and travel writer Martha Gellhorn visited the city-state with her husband, Ernest Hemmingway and noted “the real Hong Kong…was the most cruel poverty, worse than any I had seen before. Worse still because of an air of eternity; life had always been like this, always would be.” But just a few years after Gellhorn’s visit, the surrender of the Japanese in 1945 meant that British rule returned to the island and with it came a largely laissez-faire approach to the city’s economy.

In 1950, the average citizen in Hong Kong earned just 36 percent of what the average citizen in the United Kingdom earned. But as Hong Kong embraced economic freedom (according the EFW, Hong Kong has had the most capitalist economy every year bar one since 1970), it became substantially richer. Today, Hong Kong’s GDP per capita is a whooping than 68 percent higher than the UK’s. As Marian Tupy, editor of HumanProgress.org, notes, “the poverty that Gellhorn bemoaned is gone – thanks to economic freedom.”

We can see far bigger gaps whenever we pair a broadly capitalist country with an otherwise similar socialist country: Chile vs Venezuela, West Germany vs East Germany, South Korea vs North Korea, Taiwan vs Maoist China, Costa Rica vs Cuba, and so on. (Yes, I know: none of that was ‘real’ socialism. But then, it always is real socialism, until it isn’t.)

Decrying the ills of capitalism on a placard or in a newspaper headline is a trend with little sign of going away any time soon, but when we see such unsubstantiated claims, we should remember; the data simply doesn’t support the anti-capitalists.


18 thoughts on “Anti-capitalism: trendy but wrong”

  1. Posted 03/04/2020 at 17:24 | Permalink

    Comparing poverty of the greater, or less capitalist nations is just stupid. What you fail to mention is the cost of living in each country, and the effects that the difference in income within the same nation has on its population.

    Your article glorifies individualism, and the right for each individual to pursue wealth beyond their wildest dreams, without pointing out the imbalance of wealth and the power imbalance, or bargaining power in which that scenario creates.

    Your neoliberal dribble which seeks only to enrich the lives of those who already have capital, despises the idea of sharing resources and the spirit of community.

    You seek to maintain the power imbalance that exists, and that has done for hundreds of years, through the use of having capital – for those that are lucky enough.

    Here’s a societal idea that will scare the hell out of those who have capital, the ones who’s position such articles wish to maintain- every able bodied man and women should be equally rewarded with pay, for equally contributing to the work of society. No wealthy folks excuse of success, or entrepreneurship, just pure and simple equality.

    Success, entrepreneurship, well educated. These are the common excuses of the wealthy, and the few who were lucky enough to get through the gap. When in reality, if the lowest paid folks, the street sweepers, the NHS staff, the fruit picker and the shelf stackers all dropped their tools and left those wealthy folks to do the job instead, would those with capital then have the time to earn all their wealth? Exactly, no they wouldn’t have time. It’s the rest of society who carries them, allowing those wealthy folks the time to do what they do to earn their wealth, and not the other way around.

    Capitalism is a divisive economic system where those that have inherited wealth, or were the minority of society that became very lucky, they begin to make flawed excuses as to why they are wealth and everyone else not. They start pointing fingers at those less fortunate, telling them to work harder, or that they should have tried harder at school. We know that these are all lies, but that doesn’t matter, as long as the masses of poor believe such nonsense, that’s all that seems to matter.

    The state should be in control of it, and its peoples destiny at all times. Not the destiny created by those who’s financial might allows them to shape it. Society shapes our world, not those who can afford to!

    Institute of Economic Affairs – Neoliberal cheerleaders, it’s no wonder you celebrate capitalism. You’re part of the global problem, and will soon be dead like the system in which you promote.

    #DisguisingMassGlobalPovertyByOmittingDetails

  2. Posted 13/06/2020 at 01:18 | Permalink

    Capitalism vs Authoritarianism……..

    To the last post.

    Comparing this is not stupid. You are happy if all people are equally miserable just so then everybody can be the same….typical loser mindset.

    Yes! Individualism is what drives economic success you imbecile. Without incentives the wealth you see would not exist. It is like the gold at the end of the rainbow…you can see it but if you try to go and take it all by force (like you would like the state to do) then it will not be there anymore! Idiot!

    It is not “lucky” to have capital (yes this can be the case sometimes, obviously) it is often through diligent hard, intelligent and managed work that people can accumulate it. You hate to admit that. Go and research yourself the amount of individuals that have gone from humble beginnings to a large amount of success. There are 19 million millionaires in the US alone! Eat that!

    You really need to educate yourself on how human nature and the need for incentives actually works and why every communist & heavy handed socialist system has failed or produced incredibly bad outcomes at the least. With massive oppression to go along with it! You think you are smart but you are really not. You are as dumb as they come.

    What you are advocating for is a system of force where the most driven and entrepreneurial are stripped of their wealth and success at the point of a gun or imprisonment. You think this is “fair”? Right OK.

    Freedom and economic freedom are closely tied together. They both are VOLUNTARY. This is the main difference to a free market (which works) and what you describe which is a backed by force government seizure and all that goes with it.

    Every system that has worked this way has always had to use massive authoritarianism to achieve it which makes perfect sense.

    The irony is that you are the problem because you advocate for a system that wants to have total control over individual finances and thus their life. Value is not just how many tins you stack on the shelf or how many hours you sweep the floor! Massive value is generated through organized systems, inventions, technology & innovation. You cannot compare a non skilled job that anybody could do with say a high risk technology entrepreneur that invents a whole new technology with their drive and vision. Just NO.

    Arguably a mixed economy of Capitalism and some form of safety net is what works well and has proven itself the most to work. Things such as free health care at the point of access etc are a good idea but there needs to be balance. There needs to be strong incentives for the driven to create jobs etc. No, not everybody is the same. Equality of outcome is a very evil idea as it relies on theft and ignores laziness, entitlement & poor decision making. You know this.

    All of those things that you list will get you ahead if you actually do them. This is not an excuse or a conspiracy theory, maybe you should try it? Equality of opportunity is there and it is used every day.

    Do not worry freedom is going nowhere! It is authoritarian dinosaurs that are going to go extinct.

  3. Posted 23/06/2020 at 09:26 | Permalink

    Wonderful reward for a winner who has success and lifetime poverty sentence to the looser no matter however he works hard. People sell their skills, knowledge for an ample gain and in the end a monster at the top inflates his wealth like a balloon by the mere expropriation and exploitation. All movements which considers it is unfair will try to pierce it. The bubble is going to crash one day and all unfair wealth will be taxed.

  4. Posted 20/08/2020 at 17:55 | Permalink

    “You are happy if all people are equally miserable just so then everybody can be the same….typical loser mindset”

    I’d be happy if the vast majority are equally happy, not miserable as you are attempting to spin it as. The only miserable people will be the people who the vast majority take from – the few who fool themselves into thinking that they deserve all the wealth they have obtained.

    “Yes! Individualism is what drives economic success you imbecile. Without incentives the wealth you see would not exist. It is like the gold at the end of the rainbow…you can see it but if you try to go and take it all by force (like you would like the state to do) then it will not be there anymore! Idiot!”

    The wealth I see?!?…..the wealth I see, and the majority see is in the hands of those few who have capital – akin to rubbing it in the face of poverty!

    “It is not “lucky” to have capital (yes this can be the case sometimes, obviously) it is often through diligent hard, intelligent and managed work that people can accumulate it. You hate to admit that. Go and research yourself the amount of individuals that have gone from humble beginnings to a large amount of success. There are 19 million millionaires in the US alone! Eat that!”

    I don’t hate to admit that, in fact I suggested it myself that wealth is created by hard work – mostly off the Labour and sweat of the masses who actually do the work of the capital class dreams.
    Yes, of course, in some cases people do manage to squeeze through the gap with their own skill set and labor, but because of the numbers attempting and failing in comparison, any success stories would have to be considered as lucky in a numbers game.
    Further, wealth inherited is luck of parents etc too.

    “There are 19m millionaires in the US”…..What about the remaining 780 million US citizens, representing 97% of the population?

    “You really need to educate yourself on how human nature and the need for incentives actually works and why every communist & heavy handed socialist system has failed or produced incredibly bad outcomes at the least. With massive oppression to go along with it! You think you are smart but you are really not. You are as dumb as they come”

    Oh, I’m fully aware of human nature and incentives, but unlike yourself, I’m able to open my eyes and see the destruction of society that the inequality that you promote causes – and also willing to reshape my view to account for such. Again, unlike yourself.

    “What you are advocating for is a system of force where the most driven and entrepreneurial are stripped of their wealth and success at the point of a gun or imprisonment. You think this is “fair”? Right OK.”

    Now your just making things up to support your view. No, guns, no imprisonment, that wouldn’t be necessary at all. It will be the collective individualism of the poplulation that would simply take it. No bickering, no gunfights, or convictions as you’d prefer to paint the picture as.

    “Freedom and economic freedom are closely tied together. They both are VOLUNTARY. This is the main difference to a free market (which works) and what you describe which is a backed by force government seizure and all that goes with it.”

    Economic freedom applies only to those that are paid more than peanuts. When you have to work many more hours than full-time, due to low pay, then the question of freedom must be brought into question….you can’t be free if you’re enslaved by the workplace in order to keep a roof over your head! The trickle down economic theory has failed. Coronavirus has forced a neoliberal government into an act of socialism – furlough – because they too knew that their philosophy was floored, and that nothing material actually ever trickled down at all.

    “You cannot compare a non skilled job that anybody could do with say a high risk technology entrepreneur that invents a whole new technology with their drive and vision. Just NO.”

    Agreed. But that’s no reason to allow an entrepreneur to convert humans into cheap commodities that labor for near nothing whilst massively and disproportionately enriching the lives of himself and his shareholders, if applicable – all capital class participants benefitting from the backs of those at the bottom whilst giving nothing as compensation to those that actually do the labor.

    “Arguably a mixed economy of Capitalism and some form of safety net is what works well and has proven itself the most to work.”

    I’m sorry but the IEA has always dreamed of crushing the social safety net. Remember, Neoliberalism 101, each man must fend for himself. Now, either that is a concession of the doctrine you are making, or you are just trying to wing it on this one.

    “Things such as free health care at the point of access etc are a good idea but there needs to be balance. There needs to be strong incentives for the driven to create jobs etc. No, not everybody is the same. Equality of outcome is a very evil idea as it relies on theft and ignores laziness, entitlement & poor decision making. You know this.”

    Free health care, isn’t the IEA lobbying to privatise the NHS?!?
    Besides, it’s the “driven” creating jobs of low quality and pay that is the problem. Yes, there is many that do benefit from high paid created jobs, but there is many many more that don’t benefit from such – they are the Capitalist enemy, of course. If we choose to neglect them, then we should do so at our peril. Capital has a tendancy to go one way, and whilst that continues, many more will come to one day rely on that measly safety net which is currently rigged with triplines unless people take up the very same low paid work I describe. How many more falling through the gaps will it take until a shrinking capital class own everything? – The “winner” will one day take it all….much like a game of Monopoly for simplisities sake.

    “All of those things that you list will get you ahead if you actually do them. This is not an excuse or a conspiracy theory, maybe you should try it? Equality of opportunity is there and it is used every day.”

    What a load of rubbish, and yes, it is an excuse. Only some will get ahead, not everyone who true. Equality of opportunity is not there. For example, if someone who has no capital wanted to start a used car business that cost say £10k(CapEx), he maybe able to borrow from the Capital class to start-up, but the associated risks such as interest being applied to the loan would amount to an inequality of opportunity when compared to someone who already had the capital to start the same business. That’s not “equality of opportunity”, that is a statement designed simply as a distraction from reality.

    “Do not worry freedom is going nowhere! It is authoritarian dinosaurs that are going to go extinct.”

    Freedom for the masses has not yet been experienced, maybe for the wealthy, but certainly not for the poor. Besides, coronavirus may well yet highlight how successful Capitalism has been towards the masses. I guess time will tell.

  5. Posted 20/08/2020 at 18:07 | Permalink

    On rereading, I’m starting to think that you may not have been the author responding, but a third party instead. In which case, that last post was IEA orientated.

    If you were a third party poster, please answer the following:

    Capital enables purchases of nothing else other than the resources of the planet, except of course where somebody has so much capital, they couldnt possible spend it all and therefore has to stash the surplus instead.

    Now, let’s suppose you have billions in cash, and Steve, the lazy bum that doesn’t want to work at all has nothing to his name. Why do you think that Steve should have to forfeit his fair share of the earths resources so that you can enrich your life with far more than your fair share, simply because you have lots of useless pieces of paper? Why shouldn’t Steve be able to restrict you from stealing his fair share. And please, don’t refer to our current twisted capital system, private property etc, this is a philosophical question?

  6. Posted 23/08/2020 at 11:09 | Permalink

    I’ve noticed you’ve decided not published my response….could it be that you seek to crush any logical opposition that is likely to undermine the support for the capital system which you advocate so strongly for?

    Call someone an imbecile and dumb, but then silence them from posting a return if it challenges your view.

  7. Posted 28/08/2020 at 09:26 | Permalink

    Wow. For a few days, I actually thought that the IEA was post moderating and ditching opposistion views. I was wrong. Anyways….

    Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

    …A system so successful that it consistently requires state intervention, national debt increases and bailouts, followed by austerity. Whether that be the the 2008 financial crash, the 2019 Coronavirus or the many other scenarios in the past or that will arise in the future.

    It appears that your advocating for a system of private ownership and profit, but only want state intervention when the wealthy private owners lose control – every time they lose control!

  8. Posted 27/11/2020 at 01:03 | Permalink

    This is quite remarkably stupid, it fails to take into account:
    a) socialism/communism almost always occurs in the world’s poorest countries due to them being the most exploited. Where do you think is more likely to rise up in revolt against capitalism? “The West” in which people have a good minimum wage, guaranteed employee benefits and social security programs. Or, places where “the West” sends it’s industry, such as Malaysia, where people assemble Apple Phones for £150-£250 a month with no such employee benefits or social security programs? Hell, name me a single country where socialism has taken root that wasn’t stricken by poverty, go on, I’ll wait. Russia at the turn of the 1900s had 90% of its population living in serfdom, people in China still had yet to access even basic utilities such as electricity, Cuba had a (American) dictator and most the population could hardly afford food etc.
    b) socialism hasn’t taken hold, to compare it to a capitalist world as if they are on equal footing is absurd. I imagine that if this was the 1700s, you would write of the French Revolution how the population was starving (which is true, they did throughout the French Revolution) and this whole new “capitalism” business was simply inferior to feudalism – you would criticise Robespierre for making “anti-feudalism trendy” etc. One can’t simply put the two side by side and pretend they are a fair comparison. Countries do not exist in a bubble, Cuba was embargoed by the US and the EU way up till Obama only for Trump to then reengage the embargo again, yet you are surprised Cuba doesn’t have a high average income for its citizens? You know just well as I that such a comparison is absurd. Socialism describes itself as the scientific political stance, if “the data” you talk about really disproved it, I really doubt people would still be socialists. Marx was himself an historian, his entire basis is dialectical materialism… i.e hard facts of the material circumstances of people. I won’t pretend that the data looks favourably upon old communist countries, but it didn’t look favourably upon capitalist countries in their early days either – the US collapsed into civil war over whether slavery was a good idea; the french “la terreur” claimed 40,000 lives (which, proportional to population, 27.3 million, and time, only 10 years, averages out to a near identical number of executions per hundred thousand as Stalin) only to be followed by a dictator who would cause wars that claimed at least 3.5 and maybe as many as 12 million lives; the industrial Revolution meant the average worker lived worked 12 hour shifts only to die of cholera, due to squalid living conditions, by age 40 etc.

    To judge anti-capitalism based upon its practice in the real world of course so far doesn’t come out favourably compared to the dominant economic system of our age, why on earth would it? Our economic system got here through hundreds of years of work; we couldn’t have our $36,770 without first an Industrial Revolution building industry at the expense of human rights. One must imagine that if communism in, for example, the USSR had another 200-300 years to develop, it would see similar standards of living increases as we have on the founding fathers of capitalism – such as the previously mentioned Robespierre or Georges Danton. This was a quick glance at the holes this article is riddled with, doubtless, one could poke holes in plenty more parts of it that I have chosen not to – such as a capitalist organisation being asked to evaluate “economic freedom”, it rates places like Malaysia as “2nd quartile” and India as “3rd quartile”, i.e less capitalist, despite them being the places that make all our goods.

  9. Posted 14/07/2021 at 01:54 | Permalink

    What a brainless article. It’s hardly a coincidence that the first socialist countries were also the ones most completely crushed by the demands of capitalism, and as result, the poorest. Cuba, the sugar plantation ruled by military dictators which the US has had its fingers in since before the Civil War; China, the agrarian backwater plunged into crisis after decades of foreign (read: capitalist) intervention and internal instability; Russia, the poverty-ridden feudal tsarist empire ruled by the dual powers of the state and capital; Vietnam, the colony that had served as a rubber plantation for the French for decades; the list goes on, and on, and on. The author can’t even be bothered to use a three-second Google query to understand why the patterns he observes are the way they are; the article wouldn’t pass an entry-level high school social studies class. And, Jesus, he could’ve at least used a better example than Hong Kong! The city is one of the most unequal developed economies in the world – its poverty rate is almost double that of the United States, which is notorious for its economic inequality – and it’s barely democratic (half of the legislature isn’t even elected; they’re literally just corporate representatives). It now faces one of the most dire housing crises in the world because the power of capital is so entrenched that rents have soared to astronomical levels while landowners continually block attempts at desparately-needed public housing. Why wouldn’t they, when they can profiteer off of the landless masses?

    Read a history book and get out from under your gormless rock, you knob.

  10. Posted 02/11/2021 at 11:21 | Permalink

    How long can Capitalism and it’s beneficiaries, restrict the poor and masses from obtaining the riches the Earth offers without triggering a revolution where there will be no mercy for the owners of wealth?

    Bring on the global revolution, and the spilt blood of those who stand, or stood, in the path of social justice!

    The IEA, and it’s many propaganda merchants are guilty of upholding a system of slavery, misery and death. Lest we forget.

  11. Posted 15/11/2021 at 13:21 | Permalink

    The funniest thing about Capitalisms advocates(mostly the wealthy folks), is how they have always said that Communism simply wouldn’t work because people need to be incentivised inorder to make, or produce, the things that society needs.

    However, apart from being a clear diversionary tactic by the Capitalist advocates, its strange that all of the essential producing and manufacturing across the world all happens to be achieved by the lowest paid employees – the pickers, the packagers, the preppers and the processors etc, whether that be food, clothes, or whatever.

    None of these workers are paid an amount that incentivises them to do the essential tasks that society requires. Instead, they are forced by the threat of starvation, homelessness, and destitution, into reluctantly accepting work which doesn’t pay, but work that drives society globally.

    This isn’t an isolated issue, the non incentivised, exploited worker is found all across the globe, in every nook and cranny of this Capitalist world, despite their services offered being more important than any other. There is billions of workers across the globe that easily fit into this category, literally billions!

    So, despite what the Capitalist advocates have always argued, the evidence clearly says the opposite – to produce and manufacture the things that society needs, as proved, does not require incentive, but instead, as we have discovered, it requires force…the evidence clearly show this!

    Given that the Capitalist myth of ‘incentive’ has been proved to be nothing more than a lie, then they should have no fear in accepting the validity of Communism – A system where everyone contributes by ability, and the produce distributed by need.

    …Of course, Capitalists already know that to maintain the privileges and status that their wealth grants them, they must keep the Capitalist system alive – even if that means lying to, and misleading the poor!

    Shame on the advocates of Capitalism. A lifetime jail sentence awaits you all in the Communist revolution for the betrayal, exploitation and abuses of the common man!

  12. Posted 11/02/2022 at 14:28 | Permalink

    Using Fraser, a conservative and liberal think tank with board members who all have their hand in the billionaire pot of capitalism suggests that you are okay with using logical fallacy to continue spreading capitalist propaganda. Many people will read this and see it as fact when all these reports do is uplift the bourgeoise and keep the working class compliant and apathetic to the increasing wealth gap. Though, if you political orientation lines up with the ideologies of Fraser, is no surprise to me.

    Worker income is not the issue when discussing economic freedom of different economic systems. An annual income of $36,000 means nothing if the cost of living in the economic system is higher, whereas $6,000 is sufficient so long as the cost of living is lower or equal. Your argument that worker wealth gaps in these systems proves economic freedom has many holes, in particular dealing with one citizen’s ability to buy basic necessities like food and shelter, versus another’s.

    Lastly, using GDP to determine a nation’s economic success is purely capitalist propaganda to encourage workers to “keep going.” Workers see their productivity yielding profit, yet see none of it in their pocket, while the majority of it gets sucked into the bourgeoise. GDP does not measure the quality of life of a nation’s citizens. GDP does not address the human condition. GDP does not represent the means of production by which a country yields profit.

    Your arguments mock the plight and struggle of the people who work for capitalists, and your sympathy for them shows your support for a system that continues to oppress the majority while keeping a series of smoke and mirrors to subdue them. You do not take the struggles of the common man seriously.
    Your argument reflects the dismissive and passive effort of the capitalist bourgeoise. Do better.

  13. Posted 01/07/2022 at 16:24 | Permalink

    The population of the USA is not 780,000,000. Getting basic facts straight would lend more credibility to your already lame argument.

  14. Posted 10/08/2022 at 17:08 | Permalink

    A lot of historical context is omitted here. For instance, the comparison between East and West Germany is compromised by the fact West Germany was able to trade with and be supported by the most powerful countries in the world, whereas East Germany was never invested in. Similarly, the impact of colonialism is totally ignored here. The “successful” capitalist countries enriched themselves with the slave trade and the exploitation of the global south, so it’s impossible to attribute the success of capitalist countries to a particular economic model when these countries were also benefitting from the theft of resources and labor from poorer countries.

    Are poor anti-capitalist nations poor because they don’t have a free market, or are they poor because they’ve been bullied and mistreated within the context of a neoliberal world order?

  15. Posted 12/11/2022 at 06:04 | Permalink

    SOCIALISM MAKES THE POOR EVEN POORER!! C’MON SELF RIGHTEOUS, BRAINWASHED IDIOTS!! YOU LOSE ALL CHOICE!! Government has all control and all money!! It’s their power & greed that creates authoritarian dictatorships! No choice of groceries- government cheese.. yum 🤮, food vouchers, government healthcare- again.. no choice, you get what they say u get! Long lines to see Dr. because who would want to do that for nothing!! Because the only way for true socialism/communism for all the population of a country like America, they’d have to take at least 50% of your pay check! Every country with socialism, the government lives in luxury and the people in squalor! Forget tweeting on your IPhone and sipping Starbucks! If you’re American and want socialism, you’re brain dead, and ungrateful for what this country offers! I wonder why ever damn person from every country literally risk death, and some die FOR THE CHANCE TO LIVE HERE!!! Stop the effing participation trophies!!!
    Really? Socialism is your ideal utopia?? Ignorance beyond belief

  16. Posted 30/01/2024 at 12:00 | Permalink

    Keep working ,terrific job!

  17. Posted 30/01/2024 at 12:21 | Permalink

    I do not even understand how I ended up here, but I assumed this publish used to be great

  18. Posted 30/01/2024 at 12:58 | Permalink

    I am truly thankful to the owner of this web site who has shared this fantastic piece of writing at at this place.

Comments are closed.


SIGN UP FOR IEA EMAILS