Why I Cautiously favor Capitalism over Communism

Niether capitalism nor communism exist in the Western or major Eastern nations. Nor really does true socialism. What exists is the elitist system that we have come to call "Progressivism". It is centered on the centralized control/management of society by a select group - in our case that means high ups in international banking and finance and the technocrats/intelligentsia who make up "the international community" via NGOs and transnational organizations and corporations.
It uses capitalist forms to enforce cronyism and corporate domination while embracing socialist forms to turn the populace into powerless dependents who believe they are receiving aid from some compassionate fiction called "the people".
Its enemy is freedom and critical thought, which can only exist in a decentralized system with a strong, independent middle class.
While members of the self proposed elect change, some families have been actively- and openly- seeking these aims for centuries.
The catch- they are not nearly as smart as they think they are.
If you support collectivism (socialist/communist.marxist of any sort), fine, I disagree with you, but you are NOT a Progressive.
And Progressivism staunchly opposes free markets, free information, and free minds(No confusing it with libertarianism by anyone I suppose).

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

From the very start of the BHO admin I was very suspect of Jeffrey Imelt's loyalty to the United States and I also thought his 'special relationship' with BHO was very suspicious indeed. I knew that it was eventually going to develop into something very sinister - well here it is.

White House’s business adviser (read Czar) [Jeffrey Immelt] says China’s ‘state-run communism’ works.

Daily Caller link:

The chairman of President Barack Obama’s job council has endorsed China’s style of crony capitalism, saying “state-run communism may not be your cup of tea, but their government works.”
Jeff Immelt is the dual-hatted chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, and of General Electric, a huge company with businesses in many domestic and international sectors, including China.
He used a Dec. 10 television interview to suggest that China’s type of state-run capitalism has been great for business while lamenting the state of the American economy.
Read more: dailycaller.com...

Recall BHO's Communist appointees especialy Anita Dunn as she sang the praises of Mao to a group of High School students about to graduate.

Anita Dunn joins Van Jones and Mark Lloyd as members of the Obama Communist cabal. They hold up many communist dictators like Chavez, Castro, and Mao as examples of people to look to for their amazing achievements.

Obama, who asked us to look at the people he surrounds himself with, appointed Anita Dunn as his communications director. Imagine her as she addresses the high school kids advising them to look at Chairman Mao as an example of a person who made their own great choices.

Please read the Wikipedia entry about Mao, refer to the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution as examples of Mao's political philosophy Web Link

Realize this - Dunn didn't refer the kids to the American hero's who fought for freedom in the Revolutionary War. Instead she points to a vulgar dictator, Chairman Mao, who is on the same level as Stalin or Hitler. Mao built the Chinese Communist gulags and oversaw the deaths of at least 90 million people in his own country.

Originally posted by SELAboy
Niether capitalism nor communism exist in the Western or major Eastern nations.

Of course capitalism exists. The predominant economy the world over is capitalist, that is the means of production are primarily privately owned.

reply to post by Gregorian

RE your post: Yes and it was Chariman Mao who said that "all power proceeds out of a barrel of a gun" as Ms. Dunn quoted for the students. And Che was not a dictator per se but rather the head henchman for Dictator Castro. He was a blood thirsty psychopath. I wish those that think they are being "cool" by wearing his image on t-shirts, etc. would read some of his writing where he said that he wished they had nukes in Cuba (post revolution/pre missile crisis) so he could launch them at the American gringos. Imagine if he looked more like Congressman Henry Waxman (and with a less sexy name as well)....I wonder if they would proudly bear his image. (IF anyone can copy Waxman's image in the light/dark look of the iconic "Che" and post it - that would be "cool").

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by SELAboy
Niether capitalism nor communism exist in the Western or major Eastern nations.

Of course capitalism exists. The predominant economy the world over is capitalist, that is the means of production are primarily privately owned.

If your shirt is blue, but the government, the corporations, the media, and most of your brainwashed neighbors say it is red.....your shirt is still blue. What exists in most of the "civilized world" is extremely far from true capitalism.

Originally posted by SELAboy
If your shirt is blue, but the government, the corporations, the media, and most of your brainwashed neighbors say it is red.....your shirt is still blue. What exists in most of the "civilized world" is extremely far from true capitalism.

How can you make such a claim?

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, an economic system. There are no rules, other than those imposed on it by government.

No matter what direction it takes, if the means of production are privately owned it is capitalism. It has not changed since it replaced feudalism.

Quit trying to find excuses for it's negative behaviour.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by newcovenant

Do you mean the workers?

Isn't that what I said?

Who else should own the means of production than those that produce?

Why should someone be allowed, by state law, to profit from your labour?

No, I think you were speaking of corporate owners, not their workers.

Big *snip* dif

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17

Yeah, I may have lumped socialism and communism together a bit much.

I have said many times here that socialism is a bridge to communism. Both Karl Marx and Lenin said it. Socialism is Communism Lite and Communism has extra helping of violence and Gulags. The Socialists thought that Communist was too drastic and violent in their approach.

You mentioned being hypnotized by the rhetoric of Socialism. And that is what it is, rhetoric and promises of a better day, but in practice, they run out of everyone else's money and then everyone is equally miserable. They promise to make everyone equal. That means ultimately that no one can be better than anyone else, and this is why they have promoted this type of equality in the schools, where even the losers get medals and grading is on a curve.

Socialists think they can make everyone equal by force and that is a mistake.

I recommend everyone read Glenn Beck's new book, "Agenda 21", for although it is fiction, it is based on th elikely outcome of the the initiatives driven by Agenda 21, though it may manifest in a slightly different way, but essentially, no matter what the social engineers say, their motive is control and rationing of resources like water and electricity and a starving of the people of their real humanity. People will report each other for infractions of the crazy rules just like in WWII. In fact, there was rationing during WWII. SOmeone just mentioned it to me today, and our parents lived through that. Younger people never experienced anything like that.

reply to post by ANOK


Don't worry, you'll get your wish if Agenda 21 is not stopped. They will ration all resources. You will get your daily ration of a glass of water and two food squares. Not to worry though, everyone else will have exactly the same.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

THe only problem with communism is who ran it.

no one is suggesting a good way to 'run' it now; so how is today different or capable of generating a different result ?

also, you fail to mention the participants and without their voluntary cooperation/efforts, the whole system fails before it ever begins.

contrary to what has been taught, communism cannot be achieved with members unwilling to participate.

do you really think that those who are unwilling are going to have a choice in the matter ?
if not, how would this system be fair for them ?

Capitalism is essentially saying, "If you think you can take it, go for it."

no, that's something you'll hear from liberals and progressives but not too many capitalists
(a few but most would be asking "how will this opportunity benefit me?")

why do you keep calling this current system capitalism ??
it isn't, it hasn't been for decades, yet you keep on about it, why?
what did 'capitalism' ever do to you ?

resources aren't privatized now, what do you think all the conflicts are about ??
resource negotiations.

resources are not owned, the 'means of producion' with them are ... again, there is a difference even though you don't WANT to see it.

a resource based economy might not be a bad idea.
(been pondering that one for awhile but i'm still thinking on it)

communism can be highjacked and corrupted far tooooo easily, that's probably the biggest problem.
participant cooperation is the second biggest.

oh and btw, you are NOT taking my feather or buckwheat pillows away, i earned them.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


I agree with your overall premises but socialism is not communism, and capitalism does not make one free.

reply to post by ANOK

inherently possesses and exercises are NOT the same thing and never will be.

everyone inherently possesses the ability to utilize more than 20% of their brain power ... but ... do we ?
and, Einstein would be how old ????

there is absolutely NO proof that such qualities will ever be exercised on any level of social interactions.

Sussman wouldn't dare make such an assertion without proof ... she's a paid scientist, remember ?

do notice however, she openly admits that cooperation IS a byproduct of competition.

capitalism is not a 'system of exploitation' and you know it.
corporatism, progressivism, socialism ... all exploits of the lesser valued participants.

if the goal is to be self-reliant, what better path than one of self-interest ??
(not selfishness but self interest)

ah come on Anok, that link explains the theory.
it does NOT prove the functionality of the theory in any way shape or form.
it doesn't even provide examples of successful implementation.

how can you say America was set up as a capitalist paradise ??
that didn't happen til 100+ yrs after it was formed and fought over.

The history you're taught is just a romanticized story of half truths and outright lies.

yes, i was educated in the North, i'm fully aware of its condition.
it's odd that you'd emphasize your own short-comings but hey, if you think it helps your argument, be my guest.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

If someone is "running" communism than it really isn't communism.

Communism is the common ownership of the means of production, no one is in charge but yourself.

how do you have no one running communism and at the same time "everyone" running it for themselves ? ... i can't wrap any sense around that and still see straight.

and back to the question you keep avoiding, yet, without a reasonable answer, you'll never convince me this plan could work.

who would own/manage/distribute the resouces necessary to produce ?
and don't say everyone cause that's just not possible.
not in your imagination, not in Oppenheimers and not in reality.

[yes, i noticed Oppenheimer goes out of his way to avoid this specific subject, and i do wonder why?]

owning the "means of production" does not EVER include the resources.
that is exactly how we got to this point ... resource negotiations that have killed BILLIONS of humans along the way.

until the issue of RESOURCE control is established, openly discussed and hashed-out ... this revolution will never really get beyond the 'talkie talk' stage.

reply to post by NavyDoc

I have to agree with everything you just said. Perhaps we are not so different after all.

thank you for that.
i didn't believe we were polar opposites.
but, you man, i woman, we'll always be different

reply to post by Gregorian

wow, thanks for posting this, it's the first i've seen it
not really surprising, although i kinda thought this wouldn't make the news until after the New Year.

hate to say this but it does give me the heebie-jeebies and the willies all at once
... America is not about government.

America is about freedom of the PEOPLE, at least it was supposed to be.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Don't worry, you'll get your wish if Agenda 21 is not stopped. They will ration all resources. You will get your daily ration of a glass of water and two food squares. Not to worry though, everyone else will have exactly the same.

You obviously have me confused with someone else because that is not what I want.

You should really do some research, and not just trust what you're told.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin

reply to post by ANOK

Corporations are a part of capitalism, always have been

no sir, they haven't.
they came in with the wave of socialism and dug their heels in sooooo deep that original business owners had to follow their model just to stay alive.

that worked for awhile, then came the government manipulated crash, and subsequent wars and history since keeps repeating itself.

the inevitable, generational cycle of doom that we've created for ourselves must be recognized clearly before it can be changed/altered/re-booted.

while i agree with most of the literature you shared, it still doesn't answer the Most important question, resources.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Don't worry, you'll get your wish if Agenda 21 is not stopped. They will ration all resources. You will get your daily ration of a glass of water and two food squares. Not to worry though, everyone else will have exactly the same.

You obviously have me confused with someone else because that is not what I want.

You should really do some research, and not just trust what you're told.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin

I've done all the research I need. You seem to think that because I disagree with your same statement you keep repeating over and over and over and over the bs about owning the means of production, that I somehow have never researched Communism, it's methods and means. You think that all I have to do is research and then I will agree with you. But that is not the case. I have researched and the difference between you and me is I am not listening to the propaganda. You see I know that the guys running the show do not care about you and me, and they are interested in controlling everyone else. Why else do they feel they have to tell us what to do all the time? Why else do they always feel they have to tell us not to smoke for our own good? Not to eat trans fat for our own good? Why else do they want to run healthcare for everyone? Because Communism is not and never was about freedom, it is and always was about control, no matter how many times they say it's for our own good.
The truth is that in order for Communism to stay in place, someone has to rule with an iron fist. The reality is that the Russian people were not happy under Communist rule. Do you think that somehow Americans will be happy because some leftover half baked SDS people still have this idea they can make it work better than the Soviets?
It is naive to believe that all you need is really good people at the top to run things right. That will never happen. The people at the top will always be concerned about themselves first.
No, don't bother telling me that all I need is to research what Bakunin said in order to believe this stuff. Communism is about controlling and rationing resources, and it always was, no matter how rosy it sounds on paper.
Agenda 21 is souped up Communism. You will see.

Originally posted by Honor93
no sir, they haven't.
they came in with the wave of socialism and dug their heels in sooooo deep that original business owners had to follow their model just to stay alive.

That is just nonsense.

Capitalists incorporate to protect their interests. When a business is part of a corporation the owner can not be held liable for any financial problems. If the business goes bankrupt the courts cannot touch the owners personal accounts. The business is treated like it is a person, and the owner loses nothing (if they are smart).

Socialism has nothing to do with corporations.

An incorporated entity is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated through a legislative or registration process established through legislation. Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from its shareholders,[1] and may conduct business for either profit-seeking business or not for profit purposes. Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration. In addition to legal personality, registered companies tend to have limited liability, be owned by shareholders[2][3] who can transfer their shares to others, and controlled by a board of directors who the shareholders appoint.

Corporation

One of the first corporations was the Dutch East India Company, who had a state sanctioned monopoly on exploiting Asia, and played a major part in colonialism. Corporations have always been a part of capitalism.

If capitalists can do something that will benefit themselves they will do it, even calling themselves "communist". You can't say what is and what isn't capitalism, other than it is the private ownership of the means of production.

Just to put everyone on the same page, here are the definitions of economic systems I use.

Capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism/communism, the workers common ownership of the means of production.
Nationalism, state ownership on behalf of the people.
State-capitalism, private ownership by government party members.

That is the basic definitions, anything else is just other peoples ideas, not the definition of the term.