Sad...This is what you see more in Iran probably but in other countries this is becoming more prevalent as well. Modern Western civilized societies where they had formerly systems, which were taking care of their people and the wealth was a lot more fairly distributed, are now also embarking on these money sucking systems, where in they channel the money into the pockets of a wealthy few. A wealthy few who are good for nothing.
Actually this is the whole history of capitalism. In Iran it is more shocking since land reforms began just a half century ago.
Actually this is the whole history of capitalism. In Iran it is more shocking since land reforms began just a half century ago.
This is not isolated to Iran, but the attitude of the publishing site and the comments below are much scarier than the pictures.
I see a bunch of rich kids doing what rich kids do. Nothing crazy or over-the-top.
I also see a ton of OGHDEYEE people (including the publisher himself) commenting on these pictures as if being born a rich kid is a capital crime.
Living this kind of lifestyle in 3rd-world countries like Iran, Brazil, Mexico and Turkey is a challenge because the poverty line is so damn low that any display of luxury is met with utter resentment.
Have a drive around Toronto, Los Angeles, San Fran, Vancouver and Boston and you'll see insane (really insane) cases of luxurious lifestyles making these pictures look comical, but they're not dreaded like the rich of Tehran. It's because poverty is quite controlled.
I agree with Feyenoord that the world is moving towards a bigger gap between middle-class and the rich. The middle class has always carried the burden of saving the rich from the poor's wrath, but now the divide is too big and the remaining middle-class is shrinking.
I see a bunch of rich kids doing what rich kids do. Nothing crazy or over-the-top.
I also see a ton of OGHDEYEE people (including the publisher himself) commenting on these pictures as if being born a rich kid is a capital crime.
Living this kind of lifestyle in 3rd-world countries like Iran, Brazil, Mexico and Turkey is a challenge because the poverty line is so damn low that any display of luxury is met with utter resentment.
Have a drive around Toronto, Los Angeles, San Fran, Vancouver and Boston and you'll see insane (really insane) cases of luxurious lifestyles making these pictures look comical, but they're not dreaded like the rich of Tehran. It's because poverty is quite controlled.
I agree with Feyenoord that the world is moving towards a bigger gap between middle-class and the rich. The middle class has always carried the burden of saving the rich from the poor's wrath, but now the divide is too big and the remaining middle-class is shrinking.
I do better than you and my interpretations are not based on the propaganda you have been fed with.
Also, I did not point out whether land reform was good or bad. I was simply explaining that capitalism began with injustice and land appropriation (stealing resources and land) and ever since wealth distribution has been done through stealing of land and resources from people; a wealthy bunch who are good for nothing in a society. And if you want to say that they bring capital into market and they create wealth and jobs for everybody else blah blah, and that they deserve it (to have a luxurious life-style) then we go back again to the beginning of the argument (that their wealth has been created by injustice).
Also, I did not point out whether land reform was good or bad. I was simply explaining that capitalism began with injustice and land appropriation (stealing resources and land) and ever since wealth distribution has been done through stealing of land and resources from people; a wealthy bunch who are good for nothing in a society. And if you want to say that they bring capital into market and they create wealth and jobs for everybody else blah blah, and that they deserve it (to have a luxurious life-style) then we go back again to the beginning of the argument (that their wealth has been created by injustice).
Stealing land and resources is NOT capitalism. I guessed right when I said you have no clue what capitalism is. I don't know where you live but chances are you are getting a paycheck because a "capitalist" decided to risk his money. What have YOU risked in your life, besides getting out of bed today?
With respect, you have no idea what capitalism is. Capitalism is about freedom to choose and privatisation of the means of production. What freedom of choice do you have in IR where almost all means of production are owned by the state?
You are sitting behind a computer screen, probably have the latest smart phone and wear very nice clothes. Have some respect for the system that facilitated all that you enjoy. If you don't like capitalism, then be kind enough to ditch all its products.
You are sitting behind a computer screen, probably have the latest smart phone and wear very nice clothes. Have some respect for the system that facilitated all that you enjoy. If you don't like capitalism, then be kind enough to ditch all its products.
I dont think you have an idea what it is. Or actually you do not want to know, like many people. Or you are just s implying it. If it was a great system, the aggressive form of which that has resorted in huge inefficiencies in the system of world would not have destroyed the livelihood of many people around the world; People who actually rejected this system, yet it was shoved down to their throat because apparently they were told that this system is good for them.
As for privatization of the means of production , that is the biggest failure of all arguments. The whole wealth accumulation as a result of moving into a capitalist system has done by doing injustice to many people around the world and it is still continuing. Common owned land ad resources have been taken away since the enclosure movement and have been put in the hand of a few and this is called privatization.
You might want to ignore history, but that is your problem. And btw, the inefficiencies are becoming so bad that a lot of people are now warning that this might collapse.
Here is another version of freedom to choose. What if communities start to choose to govern themselves like this? will they be allowed to by capitalists?
[h=1]A ‘Revolution’ under Attack – the Alternative in midst the War in Syria[/h]http://www.movements.manchester.ac.uk/the-alternative-in-syria/
The most recent pictures of thousands of refugees fleeing from heavy attacks of ISIS and making their way from Syria across the border to Turkey, come from the area of Kobani – one of three cantons of the self- proclaimed Autonomy Region Rojava in Northern Syria.
This region – which consists of three geographically disconnected enclaves along the Turkish border – strategically used the deteriorating situation to declare self-rule in July 2012 and has since been celebrated as the “Rojava Revolution” within the Kurdish Movement associated around the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The population of Rojava, which has long been a stronghold of the PKK, is predominantly made up of Kurds – both Muslim and Yezidi[1] – as well as Arabs, Christian Assyrians, Armenians, Turkmen and Chechens. The desire for some form of self-determination especially among the Kurds was triggered through decades of denial of basic citizenship rights under the Assad-regime.
This quiet revolution is, however, not a question of independence. It is not the founding of yet another nation-state. Deliberately declaring itself an autonomy region instead of a state, derived from the critique of existing nation-states with their homogenising and exclusionary principals of citizenship, centralism of government and non-democratic structures under which the Kurds in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria have suffered on the one hand and the strategies of classic national liberation movements on the other. This critique along with an alternative model of “democratic autonomy” was brought forward by the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan, and replaced the earlier struggle for independence. The concept of democratic autonomy is envisaged along the lines of libertarian thinker Murray Bookchin as a decentralised, radical democracy within or despite the given nation-states which abides by principals of equality between genders, religious- and ethnic affiliations as well as ecology[2]. In this sense, the PKK and its affiliated organisation PYD (Democratic Union Party) in Syria are promoting this model, whose fundamental principal is to achieve a unity of all different faiths and ethnic groups without assimilating them, for the whole of the Middle East.
Within the past one and a half years the outnumbered Syrian military has been expelled from most parts of the region; police, secret service, and the civil service of the old regime have been dismantled, and the legal and education system transformed. Additionally, despite the detrimental security situation, central institutions for the most radical changes have been established in three main areas: the introduction of direct self-government through communes, assurance of equal participation in all areas of decision-making for all faith and ethnic groups and the strengthening of the position of women.
Aiming at decentralizing decision-making and realizing self-rule, village- or street communes consisting of 30-150 households have been organised. These communes decide on questions regarding administration, electricity, provision of nutrition, as well as discussing and solving other social problems. They have commissions for the organisation of defence, justice, infrastructure, ecology, youth, as well as economy. Some have erected communal cooperatives, e.g. bakeries, sewing workshops or agricultural initiatives[3]. They also organise the support of the poorest of the community with basic nutrition and fuel. Delegates of the communes form together a council for 7-10 villages or a city-district, and every city has yet another city council. The city council is made up of representatives of the communes, all political parties, the organisation of the fallen fighters, the women’s organisation, and the youth organisation. All councils as well as the communes have a 40% quota for women. The decisions are to be made on basis of consensus and equal speaking-time is enforced. Besides this, a co-chairperson system has been implemented for all organisations, which means that all councils have both a female and male chairperson. All members are suggested and elected by the population. However, according to the co-president of the PYD, Salih Muslim, this radical change from dictatorship to this form of self-rule is not an easy process: “The people are learning how to govern themselves”[4].
This change in decision-making has also brought about a radical change in the legal system: the establishment of “peace and consensus committees”[5]. These committees, which originally developed as leftist Kurdish underground institutions in the cities of the Kurdish region of Syria in the 1990 and were severely repressed in the 2000s, have resumed their importance with the uprising, and have transformed into the basic structure and fundamental principal of the new legal system. The aim of these committees, which attend to all general legal questions and disputes apart from severe crimes such as murder, is to achieve a consensus between the conflicting parties and in doing so a lasting settlement. In a general assembly of all residents every commune elects the 5-9 members of its local peace and consensus committee (40% of which have to be women) according to their ability to facilitate such a consensus in discussion among between the parties. It is emphasized that these members should not be co-opted by traditional authorities, but democratically elected and in accordance with the gender-equality principal. These peace and consensus committees also exist on the district level, whose members are elected by the popular councils on that level respectively. Parallel women-only committees have been established which specifically attend cases of crimes against women, such as domestic violence, forced-marriages and multiple marriages. Cases which cannot be solved in this consensus-finding way are forwarded on to higher institutions which exist on city, regional and canton level. Courts of appeals have been established in every region and a constitutional court is concerned with the further development of the constitution which has however been framed as a “social contract”[6].
The decision to agree on a social contract instead of a constitution is the manifestation of the centrality of the multi-faith/ethnicity principal behind the concept of the democratic autonomy in Rojava. This contract, which developed out of meetings among representatives of different ethnic and belief groups, has the aim to secure safety and self-rule to all groups. All groups are to be equally present and active in decision-making on political as well as economic and social questions and their right to self-determination is to be ensured not only through self-rule on village-level, but also through the right to organise themselves autonomously on other levels. According to the report of a delegation which visited the region in May this year, the participation of Arabs an Assyrians is steadily increasing in all areas[7]. All groups are also supported in participating in the armed wing YPG or founding their own self-defence groups, as the Assyrians have done most recently.
Image: ANF
Similarly, the empowerment of women is not only to be achieved through the presence of women in all parts of decision-making processes through the 40% quota, the co-chairperson system, woman’s legal committees, but also through the establishment of their own military wing YPJ (Women’s Defence Unit)[8]. In an interview, co-president of PYD, Asya Abdullah, argues that the movement in Syria has learned from other revolutions that the women’s question cannot be left until after the revolution. Instead, women in Rojava are playing a leading role in politics, diplomacy, social questions, in the building of a new democratic family structure as well as in self-defence[9]. According to her the self-government structures as well as the self-organisation of women are just as important as the existing independent education institutions and seminars, and the projects to enhance women’s economic independence.
This attempt for a peaceful democratic transformation in co-existence to the state, but on the premises of grassroots self-determination, pluralism and gender-equality is, unfortunately, not welcomed by all in the region. The most recent heavy attacks on the canton of Kobani by ISIS fighters indicate a greater interest in annihilating this autonomy region, which is identified with an increasing strength of the PKK in the region. The Turkish government has reacted sharply to claims made by New York Times and other media that it is, in one way or another, supporting ISIS fighters[10]. Yet the PKK sees these accusations as grounded. Such cooperation raises strong doubts on the sincerity of the government towards the peace talks which it has been holding with Öcalan over the past year. The PKK has warned that it could put an end to the ceasefire it had declared to facilitate a possible peace process[11]. For those who have made their way from all parts of Turkey to the Syrian border to protest and are organising marches and rallies in many cities across Europe, Rojava is not only the test-ground for an alternative democracy in the region, but also a bastion against ISIS
[h=1]A ‘Revolution’ under Attack – the Alternative in midst the War in Syria[/h]http://www.movements.manchester.ac.uk/the-alternative-in-syria/
The most recent pictures of thousands of refugees fleeing from heavy attacks of ISIS and making their way from Syria across the border to Turkey, come from the area of Kobani – one of three cantons of the self- proclaimed Autonomy Region Rojava in Northern Syria.
This quiet revolution is, however, not a question of independence. It is not the founding of yet another nation-state. Deliberately declaring itself an autonomy region instead of a state, derived from the critique of existing nation-states with their homogenising and exclusionary principals of citizenship, centralism of government and non-democratic structures under which the Kurds in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria have suffered on the one hand and the strategies of classic national liberation movements on the other. This critique along with an alternative model of “democratic autonomy” was brought forward by the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan, and replaced the earlier struggle for independence. The concept of democratic autonomy is envisaged along the lines of libertarian thinker Murray Bookchin as a decentralised, radical democracy within or despite the given nation-states which abides by principals of equality between genders, religious- and ethnic affiliations as well as ecology[2]. In this sense, the PKK and its affiliated organisation PYD (Democratic Union Party) in Syria are promoting this model, whose fundamental principal is to achieve a unity of all different faiths and ethnic groups without assimilating them, for the whole of the Middle East.
Within the past one and a half years the outnumbered Syrian military has been expelled from most parts of the region; police, secret service, and the civil service of the old regime have been dismantled, and the legal and education system transformed. Additionally, despite the detrimental security situation, central institutions for the most radical changes have been established in three main areas: the introduction of direct self-government through communes, assurance of equal participation in all areas of decision-making for all faith and ethnic groups and the strengthening of the position of women.
Aiming at decentralizing decision-making and realizing self-rule, village- or street communes consisting of 30-150 households have been organised. These communes decide on questions regarding administration, electricity, provision of nutrition, as well as discussing and solving other social problems. They have commissions for the organisation of defence, justice, infrastructure, ecology, youth, as well as economy. Some have erected communal cooperatives, e.g. bakeries, sewing workshops or agricultural initiatives[3]. They also organise the support of the poorest of the community with basic nutrition and fuel. Delegates of the communes form together a council for 7-10 villages or a city-district, and every city has yet another city council. The city council is made up of representatives of the communes, all political parties, the organisation of the fallen fighters, the women’s organisation, and the youth organisation. All councils as well as the communes have a 40% quota for women. The decisions are to be made on basis of consensus and equal speaking-time is enforced. Besides this, a co-chairperson system has been implemented for all organisations, which means that all councils have both a female and male chairperson. All members are suggested and elected by the population. However, according to the co-president of the PYD, Salih Muslim, this radical change from dictatorship to this form of self-rule is not an easy process: “The people are learning how to govern themselves”[4].
This change in decision-making has also brought about a radical change in the legal system: the establishment of “peace and consensus committees”[5]. These committees, which originally developed as leftist Kurdish underground institutions in the cities of the Kurdish region of Syria in the 1990 and were severely repressed in the 2000s, have resumed their importance with the uprising, and have transformed into the basic structure and fundamental principal of the new legal system. The aim of these committees, which attend to all general legal questions and disputes apart from severe crimes such as murder, is to achieve a consensus between the conflicting parties and in doing so a lasting settlement. In a general assembly of all residents every commune elects the 5-9 members of its local peace and consensus committee (40% of which have to be women) according to their ability to facilitate such a consensus in discussion among between the parties. It is emphasized that these members should not be co-opted by traditional authorities, but democratically elected and in accordance with the gender-equality principal. These peace and consensus committees also exist on the district level, whose members are elected by the popular councils on that level respectively. Parallel women-only committees have been established which specifically attend cases of crimes against women, such as domestic violence, forced-marriages and multiple marriages. Cases which cannot be solved in this consensus-finding way are forwarded on to higher institutions which exist on city, regional and canton level. Courts of appeals have been established in every region and a constitutional court is concerned with the further development of the constitution which has however been framed as a “social contract”[6].
The decision to agree on a social contract instead of a constitution is the manifestation of the centrality of the multi-faith/ethnicity principal behind the concept of the democratic autonomy in Rojava. This contract, which developed out of meetings among representatives of different ethnic and belief groups, has the aim to secure safety and self-rule to all groups. All groups are to be equally present and active in decision-making on political as well as economic and social questions and their right to self-determination is to be ensured not only through self-rule on village-level, but also through the right to organise themselves autonomously on other levels. According to the report of a delegation which visited the region in May this year, the participation of Arabs an Assyrians is steadily increasing in all areas[7]. All groups are also supported in participating in the armed wing YPG or founding their own self-defence groups, as the Assyrians have done most recently.
This attempt for a peaceful democratic transformation in co-existence to the state, but on the premises of grassroots self-determination, pluralism and gender-equality is, unfortunately, not welcomed by all in the region. The most recent heavy attacks on the canton of Kobani by ISIS fighters indicate a greater interest in annihilating this autonomy region, which is identified with an increasing strength of the PKK in the region. The Turkish government has reacted sharply to claims made by New York Times and other media that it is, in one way or another, supporting ISIS fighters[10]. Yet the PKK sees these accusations as grounded. Such cooperation raises strong doubts on the sincerity of the government towards the peace talks which it has been holding with Öcalan over the past year. The PKK has warned that it could put an end to the ceasefire it had declared to facilitate a possible peace process[11]. For those who have made their way from all parts of Turkey to the Syrian border to protest and are organising marches and rallies in many cities across Europe, Rojava is not only the test-ground for an alternative democracy in the region, but also a bastion against ISIS
LOL. Do go off topic to avoid the issue 
Capitalism has been responsible for continually raising the standard of living all over the world. Yes it's not perfect but name me one that is.
What is "common owned land"? What you refer to "common" is actually owned by the state, in return for which the worker receives a pittance while a few at the top of the government live in total bliss, like that which happened in the former Soviet block and is currently happening in Cuba and N Korea.
Ignore history ha? I wonder who is ignoring history. If anything, history has told us that when the choice is between capitalism and the alternative people in their millions vote with their feet and move to Capitalist countries. Are you that ignorant of history that you want me to name them?
The little socialism we have in our mixed economy is supported by taxes on profits and private ownership. Are you economically literate enough to understand this simple fact? In a mixed economy like ours in much of the west, capitalism has been supporting all other isms for decades.
Anyway, as I said before and you conveniently ignored, you don't like capitalism then ditch all its products and comforts. Ditch your computer, ditch your smart phone, ditch your clothes and stop shopping at supermarkets. Drive a state made vehicle, like a LADA if you can still find one
Capitalism has been responsible for continually raising the standard of living all over the world. Yes it's not perfect but name me one that is.
What is "common owned land"? What you refer to "common" is actually owned by the state, in return for which the worker receives a pittance while a few at the top of the government live in total bliss, like that which happened in the former Soviet block and is currently happening in Cuba and N Korea.
Ignore history ha? I wonder who is ignoring history. If anything, history has told us that when the choice is between capitalism and the alternative people in their millions vote with their feet and move to Capitalist countries. Are you that ignorant of history that you want me to name them?
The little socialism we have in our mixed economy is supported by taxes on profits and private ownership. Are you economically literate enough to understand this simple fact? In a mixed economy like ours in much of the west, capitalism has been supporting all other isms for decades.
Anyway, as I said before and you conveniently ignored, you don't like capitalism then ditch all its products and comforts. Ditch your computer, ditch your smart phone, ditch your clothes and stop shopping at supermarkets. Drive a state made vehicle, like a LADA if you can still find one
Capitalism on the surface is what Behrooz is saying. Just look at your house, clothes, car and phone and if you dont like Capitalism then just throw all those things away because those are products manufactured and made available by capitalists. Well, this is shallow. As if we couldnt wear jeans, own smartphones or drive cars if we werent capitalists. However i think it comes down to the definition of this word. I dont want to get involved in a discussion about the roots of all these systems because someone like Behrooz wouldnt like it and that would provok endless discussion which i am tired of. Atleast i am tired of discussing matters that we simply cant change anything about as way bigger and more important people than us tried it and had to give it up. Well ok, now we accept capitalism but capitalism is not capitalism. There are so many way humans can define capitalism. Capitalism without any kind of limitation ends up in a disaster and it becomes greedy. Thats completely out of question. No capitalist just say to himself: well now i have 1 mio. dollars so its enough. He wants more, and when you let him do whatever he wants to become even richer, and you simply cant become richer and richer without some other people inevitably having to pay your financial expansion. Why? Simple because this worlds potential and substance is absolutely limited and when something is limited and you want a bigger share of it, other peoples share will shrink. So these are real existing threats that this system is exposing people to. Now, we say ok, we have not discovered anything that could solve this problem but we can atleast try to make capitalism become a little more fair by setting some limitations to it which is already being made in a lot of european countries. I absolutely agree with the kind of capitalism practiced in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and to a lesser extent in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Netherlands but i dont agree with the anglosaxon definition of capitalism which essentially creates a jungle and let people beat up on eachother for the limited resources and the biggest and strongest animals get the biggest share and the rest are just "losers" who wouldnt deserve any better because they are simply too weak. And they call all this liberal.
This kind of capitalism is the one that should not prevail if we wish to live in a more balanced world. This agressive kind of capitalism however seems to be the stronger of both definitions of capitalism as unfortunately, those countries which atleast tried to implement and address the factor of "Human and his problems" within the system are pending over to the agressive kind of capitalism. This kind of system makes sure the gap between rich and poor widens until it becomes an international problem and we are already in such a state. Very few people own and are in control of 90% of this worlds resources and substance which is disastrous. This is what i am criticizing about the system. Make money, get rich but accept some limits.
This kind of capitalism is the one that should not prevail if we wish to live in a more balanced world. This agressive kind of capitalism however seems to be the stronger of both definitions of capitalism as unfortunately, those countries which atleast tried to implement and address the factor of "Human and his problems" within the system are pending over to the agressive kind of capitalism. This kind of system makes sure the gap between rich and poor widens until it becomes an international problem and we are already in such a state. Very few people own and are in control of 90% of this worlds resources and substance which is disastrous. This is what i am criticizing about the system. Make money, get rich but accept some limits.
For one thing, I am not a capitalist and I am not involved in capitalist activity. But I do realise that the mixed economy which we enjoy here in the West is largely subsidised by capitalist activity. We enjoy high standards of living, and have less poverty because those who create wealth are taxed so that the state can spend on the less fortunate. This may sound simple but it is what it is in a nutshell.
You don't need to be a capitalist to wear jeans or own a smartphone. But it would be good to realise that without the capitalist activity and freedom afforded to people like Lark Benz and Steve Jobs we wouldn't have many of the best innovations we enjoy today. States and governments do not produce things likes this and they need to leave individual free from ideological chains so they can invent.
I am not in favour of aggressive capitalism without any controls; I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I favour good ethical capitalism as the best system known to man. Leave individuals alone, bring down regulation to reasonable levels so that people can start up and serve themselves and those around them who can live off their enterprise. We have to realise that while the so called capitalist is making money, he/she is proving a job and a living for hundreds or thousands of others. It's not all evil and bad by any stretch.
By the way, Capitalism was first used by Engel I think and subsequently used by Karl Marx as a derogatory term and has since some to be used in a widespread manner. It doesn't do justice to the concept.
You don't need to be a capitalist to wear jeans or own a smartphone. But it would be good to realise that without the capitalist activity and freedom afforded to people like Lark Benz and Steve Jobs we wouldn't have many of the best innovations we enjoy today. States and governments do not produce things likes this and they need to leave individual free from ideological chains so they can invent.
I am not in favour of aggressive capitalism without any controls; I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I favour good ethical capitalism as the best system known to man. Leave individuals alone, bring down regulation to reasonable levels so that people can start up and serve themselves and those around them who can live off their enterprise. We have to realise that while the so called capitalist is making money, he/she is proving a job and a living for hundreds or thousands of others. It's not all evil and bad by any stretch.
By the way, Capitalism was first used by Engel I think and subsequently used by Karl Marx as a derogatory term and has since some to be used in a widespread manner. It doesn't do justice to the concept.
LOL. Do go off topic to avoid the issue
Capitalism has been responsible for continually raising the standard of living all over the world. Yes it's not perfect but name me one that is.
What is "common owned land"? What you refer to "common" is actually owned by the state, in return for which the worker receives a pittance while a few at the top of the government live in total bliss, like that which happened in the former Soviet block and is currently happening in Cuba and N Korea.
Anyway, as I said before and you conveniently ignored, you don't like capitalism then ditch all its products and comforts. Ditch your computer, ditch your smart phone, ditch your clothes and stop shopping at supermarkets. Drive a state made vehicle, like a LADA if you can still find one
Capitalism has been responsible for continually raising the standard of living all over the world. Yes it's not perfect but name me one that is.
What is "common owned land"? What you refer to "common" is actually owned by the state, in return for which the worker receives a pittance while a few at the top of the government live in total bliss, like that which happened in the former Soviet block and is currently happening in Cuba and N Korea.
Anyway, as I said before and you conveniently ignored, you don't like capitalism then ditch all its products and comforts. Ditch your computer, ditch your smart phone, ditch your clothes and stop shopping at supermarkets. Drive a state made vehicle, like a LADA if you can still find one
When I was referring to commons I was not talking about this century.
History has been full of injustice and the way the system spread to the world has wreaked so much havoc, death and destruction to the world.
Also when it comes to history of last century, we all know that history is not static. For example there is a joke in post-soviet Russia that people use these days which is: Everything that Marx said about communism turned out to be false. However, Everything he said about capitalism also turned out to be true.
I think I answered this question already above. The mixed economic system that you are talking about has been plundered by forces that have imposed neo-liberal system on the Western countries and it is moving towards a worst direction. Middle class is shrinking while the wages of top earners in the society is increasing. Can you believe this? We have in New Zealand (the country that was once called social laboratory) a phenomenon called "child poverty" that has in the recent years exacerbated. 22% of the children are living in poverty. https://www.unicef.org.nz/Child-Pov...o09vvlYSGc53WFmS298Mij9iyTFDx6MNYthoCY1bw_wcB
And you know what is funny? the liberal government here that has cut the social support for many, has done this while some of its members such as our Prime Minister were living during an era, in which they themselves were middle-class because they received social support, including state-housing. Paula Bennett who is the minister of social development and whose policy is to cut social security of many people, has lived herself for a long time with social security as a single mother, making her success possible.
As for the rest, since 2008 and since GFC, many anti-capitalist theories have reemerged. For example, different strands of Marxism have been revived and most of their arguments insofar as they are critical of capitalism are right on spot (not for what comes after capitalism because that is just speculation). Point is that the system is failing the world and Rich Kids in Tehran are a good example of it. People are starting to ask, what right have these people to resources? why so much wealth while the rest have so few? What good are they doing to the society?
>>This agressive kind of capitalism however seems to be the stronger of both definitions of capitalism as unfortunately<<
Not to worry. Capitalism, even in the most capitalist countries of the wold, has been so shackled by government, regulations and taxes that the socialism content of it exceeds the capitalism portion. US is thought of one of those countries but what do you call a country where 5% of the people pay 70% of the bills and get this. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes. So everybody rest assured. The world is safe from capitalism.
Not to worry. Capitalism, even in the most capitalist countries of the wold, has been so shackled by government, regulations and taxes that the socialism content of it exceeds the capitalism portion. US is thought of one of those countries but what do you call a country where 5% of the people pay 70% of the bills and get this. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes. So everybody rest assured. The world is safe from capitalism.