The lunacy of socialism

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

"If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism."
— Vladimir Lenin
— Imperialism

This is how socialists sell their freedom killing agenda. Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism.

Hitler, leader of the National German SOCIALIST Party (aka, nazis) and whoever was in charge of the USSR (aka, Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics) during its reign of terror were true imperialists trying to take over the world.

True capitalists are only interested in expanding their businesses. If I'm not mistaken, as companies like McDonald's grew their companies around the world, patrons of those stores were not required to bow down to pictures of Ray Kroc hanging on their walls.

We can never forget the history of socialism in the world and how it robs people of their freedoms. It has its tentacles approaching our throats in the United States and we must fight like crazed animals, if necessary, to keep it from going any further.

Capitalism may not be perfect. But its is the only methodology that gives us freedom. Only in a capitalistic society can you graduate from an institute of higher education with a law degree, and then pursue a career as a race horse trainer.

Socialist countries decide how best you can serve the government, and that ends the story there.

[thaskalos]

Socialist countries decide how best you can serve the government, and that ends the story there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWu4K9CjIF8

Don't you think that JFK meant "government", when he said "country"?

[Actor]

Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism.Claim #1.
... socialism ... robs people of their freedoms.Claim #2.
It has its tentacles ...Claim #3.
Capitalism ... is the only methodology that gives us freedom.Claim #4.
Only in a capitalistic society can you graduate from an institute of higher education with a law degree, and then pursue a career as a race horse trainer.Claim #5.
Socialist countries decide how best you can serve the government, and that ends the story there.Claim #6.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

[davew]

I must have it wrong, because I thought socialism was a method for the 'party' leaders to suck as much as possible from everyone.

Are there many 'party' leaders on this board?

[Clocker]

Are there many 'party' leaders on this board?

I'm not a leader, but I'm always up for a party.

[hcap]

No need to worry about socialism guys.
Trump will make most serious political discussions including dems/libs besides the point.

I'm not a leader, but I'm always up for a party.

Trump-Shaped Ecstasy Tablets 'Make Partying Great Again

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/trump-shaped-ecstasy-tablets-make-partying-great-again

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Claim #1.


The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

I see you neither agreed nor disagreed. Apparently you are opposed to people offering opinions. It offends you that someone dares to think for themselves and let others agree, disagree, or offer alternatives based on their own free will.

Lenin would love you.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWu4K9CjIF8

Don't you think that JFK meant "government", when he said "country"?

I'd like to think he did not. While JFK was a self-described liberal, liberals of that generation loved the America created by our founding fathers -- as opposed to the hate-America liberals of today.

[Ocala Mike]

Trappings of socialism are everywhere in our government/economy today, and you or a friend/relative are or will someday be affected. "Pure" socialism and "pure" capitalism don't work as well as mixed economies.

Everyone needs a little lunacy in their lives sometimes.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Trappings of socialism are everywhere in our government/economy today, and you or a friend/relative are or will someday be affected. "Pure" socialism and "pure" capitalism don't work as well as mixed economies.

Everyone needs a little lunacy in their lives sometimes.

I agree with everything you said -- including the last line. I didn't know people were so smart in Ocala.

I'm sure we will all disagree on the specifics of the mixed economies. From a capitalist base, here are the variations of which I agree.

The armed forces should always be controlled by the government.

Love the public libraries. (However, strongly opposed to ALL government intervention in The Arts)

I am open to suggestions about opening up the public school system to free enterprise, but until someone comes up with a solid system where "no child is left behind" it must be controlled by government.

It looks like health care will require some government intervention to ensure nobody is ever turned away. But I strongly believe government intervention can be kept to a minimum.

Government needs to ensure capitalists play fairly.

I'm sure there is more, but I cannot think of anything else.

[Marshall Bennett]

The greater the percentage of people that become dependent on the government to survive, the more appealing socialism becomes. In this country the appeal is even greater than elsewhere. Typically the burden to pay is on the taxpayers. Instead here, tax rates from almost all sources have remained generally stable, while the national debt has risen to nearly 20 trillion.
People are blindsided into believing socialism comes with a cheap price tag. Instead of reforming our economy as others begin to collapse, we just spend more and more to keep ahead of the fall. Our government will sugarcoat the severity of the problem to the bitter end.

[Ocala Mike]

I'm not all that smart; just figured out the humor in your screen name after seeing it on here many times in the past! :ThmbUp:

[Actor]

I see you neither agreed nor disagreed.Correct. That is my position.
Apparently you are opposed to people offering opinions.Not at all, if we agree that it is an opinion. But if you offer it as fact then the burden of proof is yours.

[fast4522]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWu4K9CjIF8

Don't you think that JFK meant "government", when he said "country"?

I have news for you Gus, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was twice the capitalist that these pukes inside the democrat party are today. People cut of the cloth that JFK shared are having the dirt nap faster and soon will be no more. You know what I say is true and the problems of today are growing because they are self inflected.

[Hank]

"If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism."
— Vladimir Lenin
— Imperialism

This is how socialists sell their freedom killing agenda. Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism.

Hitler, leader of the National German SOCIALIST Party (aka, nazis) and whoever was in charge of the USSR (aka, Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics) during its reign of terror were true imperialists trying to take over the world.

True capitalists are only interested in expanding their businesses. If I'm not mistaken, as companies like McDonald's grew their companies around the world, patrons of those stores were not required to bow down to pictures of Ray Kroc hanging on their walls.

We can never forget the history of socialism in the world and how it robs people of their freedoms. It has its tentacles approaching our throats in the United States and we must fight like crazed animals, if necessary, to keep it from going any further.

Capitalism may not be perfect. But its is the only methodology that gives us freedom. Only in a capitalistic society can you graduate from an institute of higher education with a law degree, and then pursue a career as a race horse trainer.

Socialist countries decide how best you can serve the government, and that ends the story there.

"Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism":lol::pound::D:popcorn:

[mostpost]

"If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism."
— Vladimir Lenin
— Imperialism

This is how socialists sell their freedom killing agenda. Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism.

Hitler, leader of the National German SOCIALIST Party (aka, nazis) and whoever was in charge of the USSR (aka, Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics) during its reign of terror were true imperialists trying to take over the world.

True capitalists are only interested in expanding their businesses. If I'm not mistaken, as companies like McDonald's grew their companies around the world, patrons of those stores were not required to bow down to pictures of Ray Kroc hanging on their walls.

We can never forget the history of socialism in the world and how it robs people of their freedoms. It has its tentacles approaching our throats in the United States and we must fight like crazed animals, if necessary, to keep it from going any further.

Capitalism may not be perfect. But its is the only methodology that gives us freedom. Only in a capitalistic society can you graduate from an institute of higher education with a law degree, and then pursue a career as a race horse trainer.

Socialist countries decide how best you can serve the government, and that ends the story there.
The first thing you got wrong was that the Nazis in Germany were socialists.
The means of production remained in private hands throughout the existence of the Third Reich.
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

some excerpts:
The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government.

It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several Stateowned firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the party.

Railways: In the 1930s The Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways) was the largest single public enterprise in the world (Macmahon and Dittmar 1939, p. 484), bringing together most of the railways services operating within Germany. The German Budget for fiscal year 1934/35, the last one published (Pollock, 1938, p. 121), established that Railway preference shares4 worth Reichsmark (Rm.) 224 million were to be sold.

Steel and mining: In 1932, the German government bought more than 120 million marks of shares in Gelsenkirchen Bergbau (Gelsenkirchen Mining Company), the strongest firm inside the Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. (United Steelworks.
Soon after the Nazi party came to power, United Steel was reorganized so that the government majority stake of 52 per cent was converted into a stake of less than 25 per cent, no longer sufficient in German law to give the government any privileges in company control.7 Fritz Thyssen, who held the leading position in the Trust, had been one of only two big industrialists to give support to the Nazi Party before it won political dominance (Barkai, 1990, p. 10). In 1936, the Government sold its block of shares, amounting to about Rm. 100 million, to the United Steel Association.

Banking:
Estimates made before the Banking Inquiry Committee in 1934 by Hjalmar Schacht, president of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economy, stated that around 70 per cent of all German corporate banks were controlled by the Reich (Sweezy, 1941, p. 31). Through the Reich or the Golddiskontbank, the government owned significant stakes in the largest banks:10 38.5 per cent of Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft (Deutsche Bank henceforth), 71 per cent of the Commerz– und Privatbank (Commerz-Bank henceforth) and 97 per cent of the capital of Dresdner-Bank. 11 The Commerz-Bank was reprivatized through several share sales in 1936-37. These shares amounted to Rm. 57 million, and the largest single transaction was a sale of Rm. 22 million in October 1936.12 Deutsche Bank was reprivatized in several operations effectively implemented in 1935-37. The largest was the repurchase in March 1937 of shares still held by the Golddiskontbank. These shares amounted to Rm. 35 million and Deutsche Bank placed them among its clients. In total, the reprivatization of Deutsche Bank shares amounted to Rm. 50 million.13 Finally, the Dresdner Bank was also reprivatized in several shares sale in 1936-37. These shares amounted to Rm. 141 million, and the largest single sale was of Rm. 120 million in September 1937.14

That is all the excerpts I will provide, but Nazi Germany transferred from public control to private control ship building, shipping lines, local public utilities, work related services such as supervision of vocational training, inspection of factories regarding issues of health in the workplace, amenities, etc. Sounds a lot like what Republicans want to do here.

The Nazi's also privatized the delivery of social services such as Winterhilfe (Winter Help), the distribution of money and goods among the poor and public welfare.

All in all, Nazism was very much a capitalist friendly ideology. While it is true that the Nazi government asserted more and more control over what corporations could produce as the war progressed. it is also true that those corporations continued to enjoy massive profits for producing those items.

Nationalization of industries in Germany took place during the Weimar Republic, not the Third Reich.

[mostpost]

True capitalists are only interested in expanding their businesses. If I'm not mistaken, as companies like McDonald's grew their companies around the world, patrons of those stores were not required to bow down to pictures of Ray Kroc hanging on their walls.
I think that first statement is true. They are not interested in helping their employees. They are not interested in plant safety. They are not interested in protecting the environment. They are not interested in contributing to society.

Now, I am talking about true capitalists. Who, by your definition are those who only think about expanding their business. I am not referring to capitalists like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros, or about the thousands and thousands of small, medium and large capitalists who care about someone besides themselves and something besides excessive profits.

That thing about bowing down to pictures of Ray Kroc is just so dumb. I have been in many McDonalds and have never seen a single picture of Ray Kroc.

[Actor]

That thing about bowing down to pictures of Ray Kroc is just so dumb. I have been in many McDonalds and have never seen a single picture of Ray Kroc.Plenty of pictures of the clown though.

[mostpost]

Capitalism may not be perfect. But its is the only methodology that gives us freedom
Your ignorance is total. Not only have there been many democratic countries with socialist or partially socialist economies, but there have been numerous capitalist dictatorships.

These would include Albania from 1922-1939.
Austria 1934-1938
Azerbaijan 1993-2017
Bulgaria 1923-1926 and 1934-1945
Croatia 1941-1945
Cyprus 1974
Estonia 1934-1940
France (Vichy) 1940-1944
Georgia 1995-2003
Plus 14 other European and six Asian countries which you can find here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_dictatorship#List_of_European_right-wing_dictatorships

Add to that Cuba under Batista, Chile under Pinochet, Argentina under the Junta and your theory is full of you know what.

[mostpost]

Plenty of pictures of the clown though.
I have been in McDonalds many times (I'm old), but not for several years.
Are you telling me they have pictures of Donald Trump on the walls now?:confused:

[Clocker]

Now, I am talking about true capitalists.

Please define true capitalists and give examples, with objective evidence, of real life "true capitalists" who meet your definition.

You say that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros are not true capitalists. Are they phony capitalists? Transcapitalists? Closet capitalists? What exactly are they?

[Actor]

I have been in McDonalds many times (I'm old), but not for several years.
Are you telling me they have pictures of Donald Trump on the walls now?:confused:I don't know about Mickey Dee's in general but I think the one a few blocks from where I live has a pic of Trump on the wall. They had a pic of Obama before.

[Actor]

... here, tax rates from almost all sources have remained generally stable, ...What is your source for that claim?

Does "generally stable" take inflation into account?

[thaskalos]

Please define true capitalists and give examples, with objective evidence, of real life "true capitalists" who meet your definition.

You say that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros are not true capitalists. Are they phony capitalists? Transcapitalists? Closet capitalists? What exactly are they?

Bill Gates...a CAPITALIST? He is a BUDDHIST...for heaven's sake. :faint:

[mostpost]

Please define true capitalists and give examples, with objective evidence, of real life "true capitalists" who meet your definition.

You say that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros are not true capitalists. Are they phony capitalists? Transcapitalists? Closet capitalists? What exactly are they?
I'm using true capitalist in the way that JHA defined it; as someone who is only interested in expanding his businesses. I think that means that those people do not care about anything or anyone does not aid them in that goal. In fact they will destroy anyone who gets in their way.

Maybe I was wrong to use the term JHA suggested. Some would call them vulture capitalists, although that term is usually reserved for those who take over a company, sell off its assets and disappear.

The men I described have amassed great wealth, but they have put their wealth to work for others. They are not climate change deniers. They are willing to pay their fair share of taxes, as long as others do the same. They pay fair wages. They don't fight or try to evade every plant safety and environmental rule.

JHA's "True capitalists" do want to expand their businesses, but it is not an "only" proposition. It is an absolute. They are never satisfied. And they are not shy about colluding with a willing government So, yes, there can be a capitalist dictatorship where the dictators are a combination of the government and powerful businesses. In those dictatorships, wages are kept low, credit is easy, social services are limited or nonexistent, and people are always in debt.

And capitalist dictatorships are not hesitant to spill blood. See Pinochet's Chile and Argentina under the Junta for examples. There are many others.

You are going to say mostpost just wants to get rid of capitalism and replace it with socialism, but nothing could be further from the truth. Capitalism is like a overly rambunctious puppy. It can be great, but it has to be controlled. Otherwise it will destroy everything, including itself and Democracy.

So what do we do? Capitalism should never be in bed with government in the way it is in this country now. Nor should labor.

We need a government that is beholden to neither Capital or Labor. The only way to get that is through campaign reform.

It should be illegal to make a contribution to a political campaign. It should be illegal to spend your own money on your campaign. All campaigns should be financed with public money. I will leave it to someone else to figure out the details, but I think the federal government should figure out the distribution of funds for the Presidential, Senate and House races. The State Governments should determine what money goes to the races for Governor, members of the legislature and other state offices. And so on down to the local level.

As for the individual races, Democratic and Republican candidates should get most of the money, divided equally. Third parties should get smaller amounts based on long term votes.

This way, no candidate can be legally bought by any special interest.

[Valuist]

When Soros expires from earth, we will all be better off. What a miserable human being.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

[quoteJess Hawsen Arown.]I have been in many McDonalds and have never seen a single picture of Ray Kroc.

Thanks for making my point. If you've been to socialist countries (I have) you see pictures of their leaders everywhere

The point is clear. Socialist loons try to compare capitalist expansion with imperialism.

[boxcar]

Claim #1.
Claim #2.
Claim #3.
Claim #4.
Claim #5.
Claim #6.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

Proof = North Korea. Communism is simply Socialism Extreme. Socialism taken to it logical conclusion. :coffee:

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

I'm using true capitalist in the way that JHA defined it; as someone who is only interested in expanding his businesses. I think that means that those people do not care about anything or anyone does not aid them in that goal. In fact they will destroy anyone who gets in their way.

Maybe I was wrong to use the term JHA suggested. Some would call them vulture capitalists, although that term is usually reserved for those who take over a company, sell off its assets and disappear.

The men I described have amassed great wealth, but they have put their wealth to work for others. They are not climate change deniers. They are willing to pay their fair share of taxes, as long as others do the same. They pay fair wages. They don't fight or try to evade every plant safety and environmental rule.

JHA's "True capitalists" do want to expand their businesses, but it is not an "only" proposition. It is an absolute. They are never satisfied. And they are not shy about colluding with a willing government So, yes, there can be a capitalist dictatorship where the dictators are a combination of the government and powerful businesses. In those dictatorships, wages are kept low, credit is easy, social services are limited or nonexistent, and people are always in debt.

And capitalist dictatorships are not hesitant to spill blood. See Pinochet's Chile and Argentina under the Junta for examples. There are many others.

You are going to say mostpost just wants to get rid of capitalism and replace it with socialism, but nothing could be further from the truth. Capitalism is like a overly rambunctious puppy. It can be great, but it has to be controlled. Otherwise it will destroy everything, including itself and Democracy.

So what do we do? Capitalism should never be in bed with government in the way it is in this country now. Nor should labor.

We need a government that is beholden to neither Capital or Labor. The only way to get that is through campaign reform.

It should be illegal to make a contribution to a political campaign. It should be illegal to spend your own money on your campaign. All campaigns should be financed with public money. I will leave it to someone else to figure out the details, but I think the federal government should figure out the distribution of funds for the Presidential, Senate and House races. The State Governments should determine what money goes to the races for Governor, members of the legislature and other state offices. And so on down to the local level.

As for the individual races, Democratic and Republican candidates should get most of the money, divided equally. Third parties should get smaller amounts based on long term votes.

This way, no candidate can be legally bought by any special interest.

There is no such thing as a capitalist dictatorship. It is not even remotely possible.

Capitalism can exist under a dictatorship, just like socialism can. A dictatorship does not even have to be evil, as witnessed by the dictator who took over NASCAR and made NASCAR rich. You can look up the NASCAR "benevolent dictator" if you are interested.

[mostpost]

I agree with everything you said -- including the last line. I didn't know people were so smart in Ocala.

I'm sure we will all disagree on the specifics of the mixed economies. From a capitalist base, here are the variations of which I agree.

1. The armed forces should always be controlled by the government.

2. Love the public libraries. (However, strongly opposed to ALL government intervention in The Arts)

3. I am open to suggestions about opening up the public school system to free enterprise, but until someone comes up with a solid system where "no child is left behind" it must be controlled by government.

4. It looks like health care will require some government intervention to ensure nobody is ever turned away. But I strongly believe government intervention can be kept to a minimum.

5.Government needs to ensure capitalists play fairly.

I'm sure there is more, but I cannot think of anything else.
1. And government should always be controlled by civilians-which is not to say former military persons can not be in government.

2. Agree if you mean government should not intervene in content-exception for pornography involving under aged persons. Disagree if you mean government should not provide unbiased funding for the arts.

3. The only reason to open the public school system to free enterprise would be to destroy the public school system. Public schools should financed through taxes and private contributions if that is what you want to do. Private schools should be financed through tuition and private contributions if that is what you want to do. No Vouchers.

4. Single Payer or Medicare for all. Government collects the premiums and pays the providers. The providers are in private practice and work with or for private hospitals, or religious affiliated hospitals or public hospitals, just as they do today. The Single Payer (government) should not be able to dictate prices, but should be able to negotiate. Necessary regulation of the industry to continue.

5. I think we have a very different definition of fairly. And ensure.

[Clocker]

I'm using true capitalist in the way that JHA defined it; as someone who is only interested in expanding his businesses.

Sorry, I didn't know that we could use our own definitions of words here, instead of commonly accepted usage. In my native language, a capitalist is one who invests money under a capitalistic system which is based on private ownership of the means of production.

But hey, if the rules changed, that's cool. So I'm defining a Democrat as a scum-sucking bottom feeder whose goal in life is to control the lives and money of people they consider inferior to themselves. I won't spell that out any more, I will just call such people Dems.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Sorry, I didn't know that we could use our own definitions of words here, instead of commonly accepted usage. In my native language, a capitalist is one who invests money under a capitalistic system which is based on private ownership of the means of production.

But hey, if the rules changed, that's cool. So I'm defining a Democrat as a scum-sucking bottom feeder whose goal in life is to control the lives and money of people they consider inferior to themselves. I won't spell that out any more, I will just call such people Dems.

A little tame, but a reasonable re-definition.

[Actor]

Proof = North Korea. Communism is simply Socialism Extreme. Socialism taken to it logical conclusion. :coffee:What about Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Canada and Norway, all socialist and all democracies? :coffee:

[Actor]

So I'm defining a Democrat as a scum-sucking bottom feeder whose goal in life is to control the lives and money of people they consider inferior to themselves.By that definition Donald Trump is a Democrat.:coffee:

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Socialism, communism and fascism -- three flavors of the same poison.

The objective of all three isms is to take away freedom from the people.

All of the worst examples started with the opiate called socialism. Sorry Karl Marx, but it is your socialism that is the opium of the people. History makes it obvious.

Hitler told the people of the troubled Weimar Republic that his socialist party would fix the economy.

Marx and Lenin told the oppressed under the Czar that the Union of the Soviet SOCIALIST Republics would make it all better.

Castro "rescued' the people of Cuba from their dictator with his so-called socialist agenda.

How about Chairman Mao, and the nightmare that is Venezuela.

Mussolini did not pass Go and collect $200. He went straight from being a bigwig in the largest socialist party in Italy to form his fascist party. It really wasn't much of a change.

We finally have a President who fights against socialism despite the fight against the obvious socialism of the Democrats and the more subtle socialism of too many Republicans. Will he succeed? Don't know. But the future of our children, grandchildren and the rest of the world depends on it.

[thaskalos]

Socialism, communism and fascism -- three flavors of the same poison.

The objective of all three isms is to take away freedom from the people.



When a "capitalistic" government is found to be illegally spying on its citizens...is this not "taking freedom away from the people"? What about when the same "capitalistic" government employs monetary policies which create the sort of inflation that robs the vast majority of its citizens of their buying power and their savings...is this not another example of "taking freedom away from the people"?

What gives you the impression that "taking the freedom from the people" is strictly a socialistic/communistic maneuver?

[elysiantraveller]

All of the worst examples started with the opiate called socialism. Sorry Karl Marx, but it is your socialism that is the opium of the people. History makes it obvious.

^^ Despised Socialism.

Hitler told the people of the troubled Weimar Republic that his socialist party would fix the economy.

^^ It did.

Marx and Lenin told the oppressed under the Czar that the Union of the Soviet SOCIALIST Republics would make it all better.

Marx was dead for four decades already so....

Castro "rescued' the people of Cuba from their dictator with his so-called socialist agenda.

Actually correct. They did overthrow the US puppet regime.

The others I don't even know what point you are trying to make...

We finally have a President who fights against socialism despite the fight against the obvious socialism of the Democrats and the more subtle socialism of too many Republicans. Will he succeed? Don't know. But the future of our children, grandchildren and the rest of the world depends on it.

Ahh there it is! This is a TrumpLove post! :)

[Valuist]

What about when the same "capitalistic" government employs monetary policies which create the sort of inflation that robs the vast majority of its citizens of their buying power and their savings...is this not another example of "taking freedom away from the people"?

What gives you the impression that "taking the freedom from the people" is strictly a socialistic/communistic maneuver?

Crony capitalism is not true capitalism.

[AndyC]

When a "capitalistic" government is found to be illegally spying on its citizens...is this not "taking freedom away from the people"? What about when the same "capitalistic" government employs monetary policies which create the sort of inflation that robs the vast majority of its citizens of their buying power and their savings...is this not another example of "taking freedom away from the people"?

What gives you the impression that "taking the freedom from the people" is strictly a socialistic/communistic maneuver?

Capitalism-socialism-communism are economic systems. In the purist form of capitalism the government wouldn't be employing monetary policies so don't blame capitalism for robbing anybody.

Communism and socialism necessarily take economic freedom from people in order to exist. Having economic control over people makes it much easier to take or limit other freedoms.

[thaskalos]

Crony capitalism is not true capitalism.

Could you point me to one country where "true capitalism" resides?

What I see in every country is a general resentment that the "rich" have for the "poor". As long as the rich remain rich...they demand that the "state" stay out of the country's trade and industry...so that the MARKET could dictate "success and failure". But, when financial calamity strikes the RICH as well...then "capitalism" is thrown out the window...and the rich run to the "state", with hat in hand...claiming that they are "too big to fail".

Is this what "capitalism" has been reduced to?

[Clocker]

When a "capitalistic" government is found to be illegally spying on its citizens...is this not "taking freedom away from the people"? What about when the same "capitalistic" government employs monetary policies which create the sort of inflation that robs the vast majority of its citizens of their buying power and their savings...is this not another example of "taking freedom away from the people"?


We have an economic system that is still largely capitalist. We do not have a capitalist government. We have a two party system comprised of the Evil Party (aka the Socialist Party) on the left and the Stupid Party (aka the Socialist Lite Party) on the right. Neither understands economics and both think that they can micromanage the private sector to improve the common good.

[thaskalos]

Capitalism-socialism-communism are economic systems. In the purist form of capitalism the government wouldn't be employing monetary policies so don't blame capitalism for robbing anybody.

Communism and socialism necessarily take economic freedom from people in order to exist. Having economic control over people makes it much easier to take or limit other freedoms.

Yes...communism is an "economic system". But that doesn't stop us from calling GOVERNMENTS "communistic", does it?

Where did I use the term "purist capitalism"? Is the USA supposedly operating under the "capitalistic economic system", or not?

[Valuist]

Could you point me to one country where "true capitalism" resides?

What I see in every country is a general resentment that the "rich" have for the "poor". As long as the rich remain rich...they demand that the "state" stay out of the country's trade and industry...so that the MARKET could dictate "success and failure". But, when financial calamity strikes the RICH as well...then "capitalism" is thrown out the window...and the rich run to the "state", with hat in hand...claiming that they are "too big too fail".

I think many here would like "true capitalism". No money printing, no bailouts. If you fail, you fail. Nobody too big to fail.

[thaskalos]

I think many here would like "true capitalism". No money printing, no bailouts. If you fail, you fail. Nobody too big to fail.

OK...so we have no "true capitalism" in this country. What do we have then..."false capitalism"?

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

When a "capitalistic" government is found to be illegally spying on its citizens...is this not "taking freedom away from the people"? What about when the same "capitalistic" government employs monetary policies which create the sort of inflation that robs the vast majority of its citizens of their buying power and their savings...is this not another example of "taking freedom away from the people"?

What gives you the impression that "taking the freedom from the people" is strictly a socialistic/communistic maneuver?

There is no such thing as a capitalist government. Only socialists who despise freedom for the people would attempt to make that tie. Governments are inherently corrupt. To minimize the corruption, the people need to be eternally vigilant and vote out the criminals.

Term limits is the best possible first step.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

^^ Despised Socialism.



^^ It did.



Marx was dead for four decades already so....



Actually correct. They did overthrow the US puppet regime.

The others I don't even know what point you are trying to make...



Ahh there it is! This is a TrumpLove post! :)

Another socialist steps up to the plate. Clearly you think that if the Russians followed Marx, the world would have been a better place. But Marx was just another freedom hating socialist clown hiding wearing a different label to hide his mission.

When people lose freedom, eventually evil takes over and the people suffer. My historical examples were quite clear.

[thaskalos]

There is no such thing as a capitalist government. Only socialists who despise freedom for the people would attempt to make that tie. Governments are inherently corrupt. To minimize the corruption, the people need to be eternally vigilant and vote out the criminals.

Term limits is the best possible first step.

In your initial post here...you talked about "capitalist societies", which "give us freedom". If "governments are not capitalist"...then, what "capitalist societies" are you talking about...and what type of "freedom" are they giving us? Who are these "freedom-giving capitalist societies"...who are operating outside of the government label?

[thaskalos]

Another socialist steps up to the plate. Clearly you think that if the Russians followed Marx, the world would have been a better place. But Marx was just another freedom hating socialist clown hiding wearing a different label to hide his mission.

When people lose freedom, eventually evil takes over and the people suffer. My historical examples were quite clear.

Are you always "Just Horsin' Around"...or are we supposed to occasionally take you seriously?

[AndyC]

Yes...communism is an "economic system". But that doesn't stop us from calling GOVERNMENTS "communistic", does it?

Where did I use the term "purist capitalism"? Is the USA supposedly operating under the "capitalistic economic system", or not?

Given that Communism is an economic system where the government owns most of the factors of production and decides the allocation of resources and what products and services will be provided, it is not hard to equate a government as being communistic.

I used the term "purist capitalism". You wanted to blame capitalism for what the government was doing.

[AndyC]

...... what "capitalist societies" are you talking about...and what type of "freedom" are they giving us? Who are these "freedom-giving capitalist societies"...who are operating outside of the government label?

ECONOMIC freedom! But that freedom is eroding year by year with more and more government intervention disguised as "help" for the people.

[thaskalos]

Given that Communism is an economic system where the government owns most of the factors of production and decides the allocation of resources and what products and services will be provided, it is not hard to equate a government as being communistic.

I used the term "purist capitalism". You wanted to blame capitalism for what the government was doing.

Answer a simple question directly for once, Andy: Is the USA currently operating under the "capitalist economic system"? And, if not...how would you characterize the economic system that we are currently operating under?

[thaskalos]

ECONOMIC freedom! But that freedom is eroding year by year with more and more government intervention disguised as "help" for the people.

Yes...Wall Street and the Banks also declare that they want no "government intervention". But when they need more money...they ask the government to "intervene". THIS has become the new definition of "capitalism".

[AndyC]

Answer a simple question directly for once, Andy: Is the USA currently operating under the "capitalist economic system"? And, if not...how would you characterize the economic system that we are currently operating under?

We have a hybrid system. How else could it be characterized?

[thaskalos]

Another socialist steps up to the plate.


For your information...I might be the only "true capitalist" in this entire place. For 365 days a year I earn my daily bread at the sportsbooks and the poker rooms...and there is no "parachute" of any kind that I can depend on. I sink or swim in accordance with my own talent and ability...and there is no "friendly banker" that would ever improve my lot in life. In fact...I am confident that all my friends are out there waiting for me to FAIL...so they could point an accusing finger at me, telling me that I was a fool to try to do something that "couldn't be done".

When you call me a "socialist"...you miss me by a MILE!

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

In your initial post here...you talked about "capitalist societies", which "give us freedom". If "governments are not capitalist"...then, what "capitalist societies" are you talking about...and what type of "freedom" are they giving us? Who are these "freedom-giving capitalist societies"...who are operating outside of the government label?

I do differentiate between government and society. Maybe 'society' is the wrong noun. But I do not link government-type with capitalism. They have a degree of capitalism in communist China. But their regulations are strict and the companies are certainly not free to do what they want if the government says no.

When I say capitalism gives you freedom, I speak of the ability to earn your living in any legal way you see fit, as opposed to a restrictive government that requires you to work at the skill that is best for the state.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

We have a hybrid system. How else could it be characterized?

Correct. Hybrid is probably the best adjective.

Years ago in America, the difference between left and right was HOW MUCH the government should and should not control. The overwhelming majority believed in capitalism and smaller government, while the debate was on individual issues of government involvement.

Now, unfortunately, one of our major political parties has been overrun by far left extremists who believe the people need to be controlled by big government and our freedoms are slowly being eroded. The so-called right wing party has become the cave-in party.

[thaskalos]

Now, unfortunately, one of our major political parties has been overrun by far left extremists who believe the people need to be controlled by big government and our freedoms are slowly being eroded. The so-called right wing party has become the cave-in party.

Yes...you've hit the nail right on the head. One party is pure "evil"...and the other party is just "gullible". :rolleyes:

When your eyes REALLY open up...you'll see that you are getting screwed from BOTH sides.

[elysiantraveller]

Another socialist steps up to the plate. Clearly you think that if the Russians followed Marx, the world would have been a better place. But Marx was just another freedom hating socialist clown hiding wearing a different label to hide his mission.

When people lose freedom, eventually evil takes over and the people suffer. My historical examples were quite clear.

Yeah... that's what I said.:rolleyes: