Wasim says ICC is run by whites

[greg]

Look- i am not saying that the west has done absolutely no good. But it is indisputable that it has been the largest source of depravity over the last 2000 odd years.

Depends how you define "the West" really. You seem to have defined it as

"the largest source of depravity over the last 2000 years".

 

[C_C]

Depends how you define "the West" really. You seem to have defined it as

"the largest source of depravity over the last 2000 years".

Care to prove me otherwise ?
Show me any other place ( namely, western europe, americas,australias, etc.) that has a worse record in butchery, barbarity,pillaging and mistreatment of human beings.

 

[greg]

Care to prove me otherwise ?
Show me any other place ( namely, western europe, americas,australias, etc.) that has a worse record in butchery, barbarity,pillaging and mistreatment of human beings.

Name a place that doesn't.

 

[C_C]

Name a place that doesn't.

The rest of the fricking world !
India or China have a history far beyond the west's but even 5000 years of Indian/Chinese/African/Persian/etc.pales into insignificance when compared to the west in respect of butchery and barbarity over the last 1000 years alone.
If you cannot see that, you are either horribly one eyed or have very little knowledge of history.
I have already given several examples of utter barbarity and butchery in the west that doesnt exist anywhere else- atleast, not even remotely to the scale of the west.

The west has a long way to go before it can even the scales- countries built on backs of brutal slavery are today claiming to be paragons of virtue and flinching from their historical responsibility. ironic indeed.

I would like you to prove how the statement ' The west has been by far the biggest source of barbarity and cruelty in the last 2000 years' is wrong. If you are truly interested in facts and not fiction( which is what the collective conciousness of the west and its perspective of its own history is) then please do read up on history and see how the west has an unparallelled history in barbarity,butchery,exploitation,etc.

 

[greg]

Africa - where to begin?
Communism
The Mongol Empire?
The Moors in Europe?
The Ottoman Empire?
Saddam Hussein
Imperial Japan
The Taleban
The House of Saud?

How are you defining "barbarity etc". And it was you who used the word "indisputably", "no debate" "don't bother trying".

 

[C_C]

Africa - where to begin?
Communism
The Mongol Empire?
The Moors in Europe?
The Ottoman Empire?
Saddam Hussein
Imperial Japan

How are you defining "barbarity etc". And it was you who used the word "indisputably", "no debate" "don't bother trying".

Stick to one sphere of cultural influence at a time.

You have pre Columbine Americas, Europe, Middle East, Subcontinent, Far East, Oceania, Northen Africa, Western Afria and Southern Africa.

Now, compare the Mongol Empire with the British - there isnt much difference and the British Empire was arguably far worse ( both did butchery and barbarity of unimaginable scales but it was the Mongol Kublai Khan who sent peace envoys and ships laden with goodies to be exchanged for knowledge- Britain did no such thing- just simply used force and neither did the Mongols subject an entire race to utter humiliation and barbarity).

Imperial Japan ? far better track record than America.

The Moors in Europe ? What exactly they did that can be constituted as worse than rest of europe ? Yes, they invaded- but Entire Europe has been 'grab one's land when one is weak' philosophy- the Moors brought with them education, literature and technology and without the Moors, you wouldnt have had the industrial revolution.

What the Taleban did for less than a decade is what the west did for hundreds of years - brutal subjugation of women, brutal repression of theological diversity and 'eye for an eye' attitude.

Please show me a culture that has its roots in as much depravity as Europe has-

1. Subjugation of entire races due to laughably insecure notions of superiority( no other place barring parts of Arabia has ever had racial superiority indoctrinated into the general populace).

2. Burning people with different theological values on the stake (apart from the Arabs, nobody has ever done such a thing on such a massive scale).

3. Massive escalation in sectarian and religious warfare in the east after the west showed up and instilled its far more flawed ideologies.

4. Marching thousands of miles and invading someone else's homeland in the name of God and spilling blood in the name of God- welcome to the Crusades. ( the west and the middle east are the ONLY examples, thanks to the diabolical notion called monotheism)

5. Perpetrating artificial famines in its colonies by forcing the labourers to farm cash crops such as cotton, indigo, jute, etc. instead of food crops ( other nations have colonised in the past but there is no historical evidence of ANY non-western nation perpetrating artificial famines simply due to its greed of resources and utter disdain for the native population).

6. Cold blooded genocide of the native americans - nowhere else in the history of mankind has the indegenous people of a land been genocided with such clinical efficiency. On top of that, most of the Native cultures( barring the Aztecs) were remarkably pacifistic.

7. You give me Saddam Hussein, I give you Stallin, Hitler and 90% of western monarchs - your beloved queen Elizabeth the First and the genocide of the Irish under her and Oliver Cromwell. Imagine the genocide of the Kurds by Saddam, multiply by a few orders of magintude and you have the supposedly virgin queen.

8. The evolution and perfection of the fundamental tool of western civilization in maintaing economic superiority- capitalism.

9. Tendency to plagiarise anything and everything as western discoveries - from the Americas to Newton's law, medicine, etc.

10. The single biggest source of devastation of nature and ecology.

11. Support of absolute genociders and active installation of despots simply due to their economic greed.

Anything remotely on the same scale and level of depravity comming out any other cultural sphere in its history ?

The west is changing- slowly. But contrary to popular beleifs, its neither better morally, nor has it erased its historical blot.

So get off your high horse and face the facts please. I ask you again, on the same scale, what compares with the depravity of the western culture over the last 2000 years ?

Just the trans-atlantic slavery alone puts it head and shoulders above the rest in terms of nefariousness, nevermind the several other instances of brutality.

The reason you see gangs like KKK, Aryan Nation, British Israelism, etc. still commanding a big support base in the west is because the west has never openly and honestly addressed its past. It tried doing so in the Hippie era but got clamped down pretty fast by the powers that be.
Until you can accept the role of a certain cultural sphere in history, you cannot improve on it. Any improvement otherwise is purely cosmetic as it is essentially in the west( please check up on drug experimentations, conduct of western multinationals and its governments in overseas affairs to THIS DAY!).

PS: I am not justifying any of the depravity done by the rest- take care to note that. I am however, comparing the historical past of each cultural zone and if it isnt clear to you that the western cultural zone over the last 2000 years is far far more nefarious than the rest of the world put together, i think you really need to study human history in greater detail.

 

[ClownSymonds]

Wow, C_C, you really hate the West. I actually agree with much of what you say, though some of it is a bit off. At least you're making sense, anyway. However, you must remember where cricket came from. We may not need SUVs or iPods, but we most certainly do need cricket; even more than food and shelter, I dare say.

 

[C_C]

Wow, C_C, you really hate the West. I actually agree with much of what you say, though some of it is a bit off. At least you're making sense, anyway. However, you must remember where cricket came from. We may not need SUVs or iPods, but we most certainly do need cricket; even more than food and shelter, I dare say.

Oh i dont hate the west. I think the west is making a genuine attempt to turn a new leaf but i do try and serve as a bit of a reality check for those who get overly smug about the accomplishments of the west. A lot of it is media management where the picture is often completely turned around.
I feel that with great power comes great responsibility and western history has been a vivid example of corruption of power, not responsible use of power- more so than any other cultural sphere. I've mostly grown up in the west and i have absolutely no problem in admitting that not very long ago, i was motivated by personal gain and a lot of my allegience to the west was rooted in personal gain - through its economic clout that is unfair at best of terms and criminal at worst. I am trying to change that and my perspective is evolving to a more world-based one rather than the limited scope of ethnocentric/culture-centric perspective that overwhelming majority of human beings have.

And i do remember where cricket came from. Vive le France !

 

[greg]

Stick to one sphere of cultural influence at a time.

You have pre Columbine Americas, Europe, Middle East, Subcontinent, Far East, Oceania, Northen Africa, Western Afria and Southern Africa.

Now, compare the Mongol Empire with the British - there isnt much difference and the British Empire was arguably far worse ( both did butchery and barbarity of unimaginable scales but it was the Mongol Kublai Khan who sent peace envoys and ships laden with goodies to be exchanged for knowledge- Britain did no such thing- just simply used force and neither did the Mongols subject an entire race to utter humiliation and barbarity).

Imperial Japan ? far better track record than America.

The Moors in Europe ? What exactly they did that can be constituted as worse than rest of europe ? Yes, they invaded- but Entire Europe has been 'grab one's land when one is weak' philosophy- the Moors brought with them education, literature and technology and without the Moors, you wouldnt have had the industrial revolution.

What the Taleban did for less than a decade is what the west did for hundreds of years - brutal subjugation of women, brutal repression of theological diversity and 'eye for an eye' attitude.

Please show me a culture that has its roots in as much depravity as Europe has-

1. Subjugation of entire races due to laughably insecure notions of superiority( no other place barring parts of Arabia has ever had racial superiority indoctrinated into the general populace).

2. Burning people with different theological values on the stake (apart from the Arabs, nobody has ever done such a thing on such a massive scale).

3. Massive escalation in sectarian and religious warfare in the east after the west showed up and instilled its far more flawed ideologies.

4. Marching thousands of miles and invading someone else's homeland in the name of God and spilling blood in the name of God- welcome to the Crusades. ( the west and the middle east are the ONLY examples, thanks to the diabolical notion called monotheism)

5. Perpetrating artificial famines in its colonies by forcing the labourers to farm cash crops such as cotton, indigo, jute, etc. instead of food crops ( other nations have colonised in the past but there is no historical evidence of ANY non-western nation perpetrating artificial famines simply due to its greed of resources and utter disdain for the native population).

6. Cold blooded genocide of the native americans - nowhere else in the history of mankind has the indegenous people of a land been genocided with such clinical efficiency. On top of that, most of the Native cultures( barring the Aztecs) were remarkably pacifistic.

7. You give me Saddam Hussein, I give you Stallin, Hitler and 90% of western monarchs - your beloved queen Elizabeth the First and the genocide of the Irish under her and Oliver Cromwell. Imagine the genocide of the Kurds by Saddam, multiply by a few orders of magintude and you have the supposedly virgin queen.

8. The evolution and perfection of the fundamental tool of western civilization in maintaing economic superiority- capitalism.

9. Tendency to plagiarise anything and everything as western discoveries - from the Americas to Newton's law, medicine, etc.

10. The single biggest source of devastation of nature and ecology.

11. Support of absolute genociders and active installation of despots simply due to their economic greed.

Anything remotely on the same scale and level of depravity comming out any other cultural sphere in its history ?

The west is changing- slowly. But contrary to popular beleifs, its neither better morally, nor has it erased its historical blot.

So get off your high horse and face the facts please. I ask you again, on the same scale, what compares with the depravity of the western culture over the last 2000 years ?

Just the trans-atlantic slavery alone puts it head and shoulders above the rest in terms of nefariousness, nevermind the several other instances of brutality.

The reason you see gangs like KKK, Aryan Nation, British Israelism, etc. still commanding a big support base in the west is because the west has never openly and honestly addressed its past. It tried doing so in the Hippie era but got clamped down pretty fast by the powers that be.
Until you can accept the role of a certain cultural sphere in history, you cannot improve on it. Any improvement otherwise is purely cosmetic as it is essentially in the west( please check up on drug experimentations, conduct of western multinationals and its governments in overseas affairs to THIS DAY!).

PS: I am not justifying any of the depravity done by the rest- take care to note that. I am however, comparing the historical past of each cultural zone and if it isnt clear to you that the western cultural zone over the last 2000 years is far far more nefarious than the rest of the world put together, i think you really need to study human history in greater detail.

Which is why you should have defined "the West". Most of your examples have been forced to include "and the Arabs were pretty bad as well". To include Stalin, for example is to extend the defintion of "the West" so wide as to be verging on meaningless. You can't even refine it to Christianity (and monotheism" since Stalin (and Hitler" hardly drew inspiration from religion. And then the Industrial revolution and all the scientific advances which flowed from it are attributed to thse Moors!

At least you manage to find a place to mention Israel.

Anyway, as Clown says, any culture that gave us cricket can't be all bad :-)

 

[C_C]

Which is why you should have defined "the West". Most of your examples have been forced to include "and the Arabs were pretty bad as well". To include Stalin, for example is to extend the defintion of "the West" so wide as to be verging on meaningless. You can't even refine it to Christianity (and monotheism" since Stalin (and Hitler" hardly drew inspiration from religion. And then the Industrial revolution and all the scientific advances which flowed from it are attributed to thse Moors!

At least you manage to find a place to mention Israel.

Anyway, as Clown says, any culture that gave us cricket can't be all bad :-)

I have defined the west - european cultural sphere. And why is it meaningless( or verging on it) to include Stallin, given that Russia is an European nation, with its cultural perspective lying well within the european sphere ?

I've included in some examples where Arabs were pretty bad - note not all and actually less than half the examples.
This is to demonstrate that no culture is perfect but owing to the long list of western accomplishments in the category of barbarity, it comes out as the worst influence on this planet in the last 2000 years or so.

As per the industrial revolution being attributed to the moors -why dont you do the research for yourself and see for yourself ? Several historians today hold that perspective, given that the Moors were far more developed than western europe technologically and scientifically and the sparks of industrial revolution in Europe was first ignited in southern Spain while it was under Moorish control ?

The mention of monotheism is not simply because of a matter of faith but how the culture defines itself. Europe's culture, even to this day, is definitively monotheistic and the bulk of european cultures draw the bulk of their values from monotheistic base of values.
Even Hitler and Stallin did that - their cultural perspectives were rooted in monotheistic perspective, particularly pertaining to ruling and punishment.

 

[C_C]

At least you manage to find a place to mention Israel.

PS: 'British Israelism' has very little to do with Ancient Israel and its people and like most jews today, share nothing in common with historical israel save for elements of culture and a rather absurd notion that the British monarchy is the one who set up Egypt, India, Greece, persia, Rome etc. before finally moving to the isles.

 

[marc71178]

It is irrelevant to debate this now, because there is no way of telling without letting the events play itself out. We are not measuing a physical quantity here, we are measuring human perceptions

No, the way of telling now is to look at now.

 

[C_C]

No, the way of telling now is to look at now.

Not good enough.
In inter-human organisations and interactions, covert patterns need time to establish themselves or atleast, be detected.

And if you look now, there is a bit of an aussie bias when it comes to disciplinary actions-particularly stemming from cultural steriotypes about how players from certain nations are supposed to behave- Mike Procter is a classic example of that.

 

[Blaze]

C_C, you are a very knowledgeable person. Out of interest, Where are you from?

 

[SJS]

We may not need SUVs or iPods, but we most certainly do need cricket; even more than food and shelter, I dare say.

I NEED MY IPOD TOO !!

 

[swede]

C C

this discussion is hopeless. you just want to blame the west for everything.

when british engineers carried-out large scale irrigation projects in parts of India eradicating drought and starvation that had been a regular occurence for centuries its irrelevant. you only see the bad things.
british missionaries, nuns, and others trying to help with western medicin etc. you dont want to see it,

anything bad and you will find a way of relating it to the west, anything good its not the west.
A typical example.Individual human rights which have so obviously been promoted by the west are of course invented somewhere else according to you. great.
"invented" Why didnt they introduce it then? Had it been the other way around, you would have blamed the west for inventing it but not promoting it.

why did china build that small wall if it was all so idyllic? I have never heard of a place that did not know war? please tell me where these happy people lived?

you make an interesting point about consumerism in the west, but do you know what?

Its India and the developing that really depends on us to buy things. If the west didnt want stuff there was nothing to sell to us and it would hurt the poor of this world.
We actually have to create this demand. Its capitalism free trade and it works, at least better than anything else invented.
If the west stopped working and spending money it would be devastating for the poor in this world.

You may believe people are happier in Nigeria because of highly subjective answers to something that cannot be measured, I dont.
I wonder what health care they have. ilitteracy,how many infants survive, how old they become, what education they get, employment, security, freedom

But I guess you are sad then you got an education, speak english, cricket,have a computer, and the freedom to express precisely what you want..

Britain developed because people were quite free earlier than most, to think for themselves and improve their lot. so they began to trade, moving goods on rivers, building ships, get richer, rich kids going to school, more people learning to read and write, making newspapers possible, leading to information, debate, awareness, democracy taking root, books leading to new ideas, new industries etc. etc.

The same model now being followed in the developing world.
This world is moving rapidly towards ending wars and even poverty and there is no way that could have happened without Britain and the west.

I also diagree with all this "capitalism is unsustainable" marxist university nonsense"
economies grow by us being able to do things better for instance through new technologies. And very few people believe we are not in front of a long period of technological development which alone can drive economic progres. There are issues such as energy but there are also lots of possible solutions.
Is growth unsustainable at some point? who knows, its hardly going to be an issue concerning anyone alive today and probably not until a time long after poverty has been eradicated.

 

[C_C]

In reply to Swede

Look - i am a scientist by profession and as such i deal with facts and facts alone.
Your insinuations about what i would've said or could've said is utterly irrelevant and exposing your insecure relationship with european history.

Notice that i've said categorically that the west has done some good- only that it has done far more worse than good.

For one, the universal human rights were introduced by King Kurash and adopted by Emperor Ashoka. The large bulk of it survived for aeons before the crusades started and completely changed the middle eastern scene with its butchery in the name of God, perpetrated by the Europeans. However, most of it was abolished by the colonial trade federations( which was subsequently cosolidated into crown land). I bet you didnt know that, eh ?

You havn't heard of a place that hasnt heard of war ( actually Bhutan would be a good example but whatever)- neither have i really. But waging war is one thing, systematically genociding the entire populace of two continents is totally a new ballgame.
Debauching women after winning a battle is one thing, enforcing slavery is quiete another.
I am not justifying any of them - merely pointing it out to you that Europe took it to new depths of human conduct and behaviour- i ask you to show me a worse list of 'achievements'.

Let me see if you like the reverse scenario if you think that the British accomplishments wern't so bad. Lets start bonded labour in UK, trigger artificial famines and make the people slave away for another nation. Lets loot whatever meager historical sites and short history britain has.
No ? you dont like it ? Well neither do the rest of the world. And like i said - stop hyperventilating and your pusillanimous vacillations- show me a colonizing force doing worse than the Europeans. Back it up with evidence. Go ahead. Too many of you guys try to normalise the brutal history of Europe by saying ( quite erroneously and utterly not supported by facts) that others did pretty much the same.

As per your notion of Britain's progress- you are quite wrong.
Britain started developing primarily due to its succesful navy that kept the island protected in most times. The British industrial revolution sparked mass bonded labour of the irish and scottish in Britain( not to mention the welsh and common English populace) - Do you have any idea why socialism and marxism found a base in europe and not anywhere else ?
It is because of the brutal repression of the industrialists of the common populace. Oliver Twist isnt much far off the truth. British history and entire European opulance has come not from trade but from plunder and slavery. Dun and Bradstreet( an esteemed accounting firm) estimated the British to have looted/stolen approximately 40 trillion dollars worth of resources from other nations in today's value( 2002 i believe). So your assessment that Europe developed because of its entreprenuership, you are quite wrong. It was developed- more than any other part of this planet- through trade.
The average merchant trader in the 1700s was called a privateer. Do you even know what a privateer is and what they did ? Go find out if you dont, but dont come and try to BS your way through it, simply because you arnt comfortable with facts and the history of Europe.

Do not try to normalise the dark history of Europe simply because of their accomplishments. That is akin to saying that my acts as a genocider can be normalised if my name is Einstien. That is essentially the analogy you are using.
You are using the technological advances made by Europe ( which were, for the most part, sparked by scientific input from the east) to justify its butchery.
Now, since i am a scientist, if i end up creating a wonderous power source, i am sure you will use the same logic to defend me should i wish to go and hack a few hundred folks into pieces simply because i thought they were inferior to me.
You will no doubt argue that i am no worse than you, nevermind the fact that you or nobody else did anything remotely similar.

As per your idea of how money is created and who exports goods to whom, i would suggest you read the most basic economics.
The developed nations depend ( that is, utterly depend) on procuring raw materials at far below market price( a practice they still enforce in Africa today and have enforced for centuries) to churn out finished goods.
I would like you to explain to me how some of these African countries are developing, considering that western corporations, with their government backing ( politically and militarily) install/influence tinpot dictators, bribe em off and loot the land of their resources.
If you think this is a lie, look up Mabutu Sese Seko and his reign in power. And if you call this 'trade', i suggest you buy yourself an English dictionary.

Historical analysis by Amartya Sen ( a nobel lauriate in economics) show that resources are far far more skewered in the post colonial world than pre-colonial world. Care to dispute that ? Or are you gonna hold on to your flimsy notion that capitalism works.

Oh and before you try your 'commie marxist boo boo' tactic, i would like you to learn the difference between socialism, capitalism, marxism, leninism,maoism, etc.

If you believe that capitalism works, then please tell me the flaws in this article :

-------------

Technically speaking, when we are talking about quentessential capitalism (ie, unbridled and total capitalism), then every transaction is exploitation of the poorer party. Quntessential capitalism (ie, total capitalism) is strictly money-based distribution of power. Ie, in a total capitalistic scenario, the factory owner has all the rights and the workers no rights. The very concept of 'rights' is anti-capitalistic and socialist in nature. For totally unbridled, capitalism is utter 'survival of the fittest'. The very fact that you have rights- right to quit your job, right to say no to overtime, right to proper workplace conditions etc. are due to socialism. For those changes did not come around till socialism sprouted off and the capitalists had to give some ground.
The very genesis of capitalism is in exploitation. The western european nations went the capitalistic route on the back of slavery, colonialism and as such you have to follow the progression of capitalism inorder to try and simulate a future.
Capitalism is profit driven - inorder to make a profit, one has to get shafted. Simple as that. If i am buying a backpack for 35 dollars when its actual price is 30, i am getting shafted. Now follow that to macroeconomics level.
The fundamental drive for capitalism is to generate profit. The only way you can generate profit is by producing goods cheaper than what they are sold at.
The only way you are gonna do that is by exploiting an underdeveloped country or region to be the 'goods producer' for the developed nation.
For once a nation develops, it loses it pool of impoverished workers - America, britain,western europe, et. al lost its own pool of impoverished workers as the living conditions improved and colonialist based economy shifted the yoke of the impoverished to the colonies. Suddenly the blue collar worker in Europe wasnt the bottom-most rung of the ladder- the citizens of the colonies were below him and this 'middleman' status helped them to rise and close the gap with the rich, thus transforming the nation into a developed one.
But what was the result ? it shifted the yoke of 'impoverished workers' to some other third world nation. This is precisely why Nike stopped manufacturing shoes in the US and shifted it to Indonesia. Japan did the same thing after its expansion boom in the 50s and 60s- it shifted ( the process was very accelerated due to western investments) its 'impoverished blue collar workforce' yoke to the south-east asian countries.
Which is why you dont find any 'made in japan' shirts and shoes beyond the mid 70s.
It started shifting even its technological industry to the south-east asian nations and that is why come the 90s, suddenly Sharp or Panasonic had a lot more 'made in Malaysia' labels instead of 'Made in Japan'.

So what is the end result of capitalism ?
It has two possibilities - one, the developed nations police the economies in such a way that the status quo is maintained and the developing nations never outstrip the development of the developed nations. This is done not only to the developing nations but amongst developed nations as well, depending on who has more economic clout ( if you go through the American hypocrasy through the NAFTA deals and its violations, its evident). I find this extremely evil, for nobody has the right to say 'this nation shall forever remain poor and we shall forever remain rich'.

the other possibility is that capitalism will run its course one day and collapse on itself.
Why ? because opening blue-collar 'impoverished workers' plants in the third world generates capital in that nation and over due time, that capital accrues to a point where several of those blue-collar workers can afford to become investors themselves. India is a prime example of this - nowadays Indian businessmen are investing globally in lesser developed nations alongside investing in India. But eventually, a point will come when India generates so much capital ( not in empirical sense but relative to its population) that India becomes developed and its entreprenuers will look for other countries to exploit and this process is gonna be repeated for the 'nth' time in far more impoverished nations like Zambia, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.
Since the number of countries and people are finite, theoretically, eventually you will hit the wall,where there is simply not enough 'blue collar impoverished workforce' left in the world to sustain the productions for the massive developed world.
And then ? well..capitalism collapses.
That may happen 50 years from now or 500. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is at the end of the day, capitalism is exploitation and you either aggressively and immorally maintain the status quo or you simply run outta people to exploit and the whole system collapses on itself.
This is why i am not big on capitalism.

 

[C_C]

its hardly going to be an issue concerning anyone alive today

Precisely the short-sighted screwed up perspective why you have the diabolical concept of National debt.

 

[C_C]

C_C, you are a very knowledgeable person. Out of interest, Where are you from?

Thank you. I am from Vancouver, Canada.

 

[social]

C C

Marxism, socialism, communism, whatever other -ism you care to name, have all been tried and failed. They look great on paper but fail for one simple reason - the involvement of humans and their associated personality traits.

Whether administered by a democracy or benevolent dictatorship, capitalism is the only system that has stood the test of time.

Obviously, It has its' faults but again these lie with those practicing its dark art.

As for the notion that capitalism will collapse - nonsense.

At the core of capitalism are transactions (not exploitation of the weak as you so colourfully put it). Unless one element of society becomes perfectly self-sufficient, transactions will continue ad infinitum as will capitalism.