Why I Cautiously favor Capitalism over Communism

Originally posted by Honor93reply 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honor93 - Yours is only the second reply to that post, which is somewhat surprising given the significance of what it contains. Please allow me the opportunity here to continue along those same lines, which are surely in keeping with the title of this thread - "Why I Cautiously favor Capitalism over Communism" - excepting to say that for my own part I am not 'cautious' in the least in my choice of Capitalism over Communism as can be seen from what follows in my critique of BHO's brand of Marxist Communism.

B.H. Obama is a westerners Marxist/Leninist, i.e, one of those who would also be known generally as 'cultural communists.' This is why he seems to most ordinary citizens as relatively benign, but as many are now beginning to notice, once power has been seized - and it certainly has - the mask and the gloves come off, and the 'ruler' - together with his socialist minions - some of whom are listed below, revert to their true Marxist ideals - their communist roots, as they find necessary and convenient in the sense of political expediency.

The goal for BHO here is to foment economic, political, religious, social and cultural chaos as a key to maintaining his strong grip on power. The most telling (because of all that it implies) of all of the BHO quotes in this regard was "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." .

Here are his remarks in their full context as spoken in that Marxist rant against American enterprise and free-market capitalism that he delivered earlier in 2012.
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

The commentary above is an overt expression of Marxism: in a Marxist worldview, the government, or better yet, the State, is infinitely more important than the people in it.
Obama’s quote above not only reminds me of Karl Marx, the father of socialism and communism, moreover, his arrogant, anti-business, anti-capitalism outburst brings to mind the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson who stated, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.”

Here is how the BHO agenda will eventually play itself out: Nothing in society will belong to any one individual, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his or her needs, pleasures, or daily work.............Every citizen will be a public person, sustained by, supported by and occupied at the public expense........Every citizen will make their particular contribution to the activities of the community according to their capacity, talent and age; and it is on this basis that their duties will be determined, in conformity with the re-distributive laws. Note well the term distributiveas used here - its the key word of BHO's entire agenda, but with a great emphasis on the prefix 're.'

These Marxist principles are a direct assault on private property, individual liberty, free enterprise, and on the natural law and on God. Under this Marxist paradigm, God is dead – materialism and the State are united to become god. Obama’s not so hidden agenda is Marxist Communism, and he has personally chosen a covert cabal of Marxists, communists, progressives, radicals, socialists - far left democrats whose intention it is to destroy capitalism and the American way of life, i.e., the American republic.

Here's just a partial list - an ever changing and ever growing list - of those he has personally chosen to carry out his Marxist plan: John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Anita Dunn, Jeffrey Immelt, George Soros, David Axelrod, Saul Alinski, Peter Singer, Kathleen Sebelius, Van Jones, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Andy Stern, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Eric Holder, Carol Browner, Hilda Solis, Hillary Rodham-Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, John Lewis.

I have intentionally omitted the details on these individuals - please do your own research on each of them individually. I think we learn more that way.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


But think about what the 'free market' does to places OTHER than the US.
It's that kind of centralized thinking that has brought on foreign disdain for our practices and ethics.
The free market essentially de-values the working class, and the poor in foreign countries to essentially what could be viewed as a giant assembly line.

To even say that it's making significant progress over here would be to undermine the fact that it is doing great damage to children, and working poor in foreign countries.

Originally posted by Honor93
the definition i have for capitalism is this ... an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
source - www.merriam-webster.com...

Which is what I said. But the dictionary didn't define the term capitalism, socialists did. The main definition is 'the private ownership of 'capital goods' (the means to produce)'. It's just worded a little different, but it means the same thing. Just like the term socialism has lots of baggage attached to it, but the common definition is worker ownership of the means of production, no matter what the political system is.

The first person to define the term was Louis Blanc, a French socialist who defined it as...

In 1850, Louis Blanc defined capitalism as "the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others." Proudhon later defined it as an "Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour."

History of the term capitalism

The term was later refined to 'the private ownership of the means of production'.

Most of these terms we use were coined by socialists in the 1800's. Those terms have been appropriated by those seeking power on the backs of the labour of the working class.

The word “capitalism” was coined by the socialists, often used as a pejorative, and has historically described a system of state-granted privilege and plutocracy. This is the definition to which most people subscribe, and which I would argue prevails today. A contrary definition is one that is synonymous, or nearly synonymous with “free markets”. My best guess is that this “definition” is a the result of a revisionist attempt to hijack the term “free markets”.

“Free Markets” Are Not “Capitalism”

What Socialism is: "Collective ownership and democratic control of the material means of production by the workers and the people."

A Brief Introduction to Socialism

In the traditional sense, "socialism" means the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers themselves...

Socialism and Capitalism

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers....

Anton Pannekoek 1947 Public Ownership and Common Ownership

Many people believe that socialism means government or state ownership and control. Who can blame them when that is what the schools teach and what the media, politicians and others who oppose socialism say? Worse, some people and organizations that call themselves socialist say it, too—but not the Socialist Labor Party...
...Under socialism the workers who operate the industries and services would collectively own and democratically manage them...

SOCIALISM—ITS MEANING AND PROMISE

How about a linguist describing terms?



The establishment has lied to you, just like the USSR lied to their people. They just want your support so they can exploit you.

Now I have given you plenty of info, it's up to you to do your own research.

reply to post by ANOK

I am of the opinion that any defense of Socialism is unconscionable on its face generally, and in a particular way it becomes more so when uttered from the mouths of babbling leftist pseudo intellectuals. Socialism precedes the gulags so don't be fooled by her pretty dress - she's a wicked witch in disguise.

On this -->

Under socialism the workers who operate the industries and services would collectively own and democratically manage them...

I have worked in places that operated under a buy-out system and never once did I have any impression whatsoever - from the condition of the workplace nor from any of the other workers - that the particular company I was working for had transformed itself, i.e., morphed into a 'socialist' workplace. Things stayed pretty much the same excepting for a less stressful work environment and peace of mind regarding job security for those who made the decision to do a "buy-out," essentially becoming their own bosses.

reply to post by Gregorian


If you think Obama is a Marxist Leninist then I think you need to look up some basic definitions. I don't care what fox news has told you, he's clearly a capitalist.

No point arguing with you if you don't even know what communism or socialism is.

Try actually reading something by Marx or Lenin. (And please don't reply that you already have, my faith is humanity is low enough already).

Originally posted by polarwarrior
reply to post by Gregorian

 

If you think Obama is a Marxist Leninist then I think you need to look up some basic definitions. I don't care what fox news has told you, he's clearly a capitalist.

No point arguing with you if you don't even know what communism or socialism is.

Try actually reading something by Marx or Lenin. (And please don't reply that you already have, my faith is humanity is low enough already).

edit on 12/12/12 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)

It seems it is you who needs to look up some definitions. The results are in on Marxism but all too often wannabe commies come along and claim it was not done right read Marx blah blah....

so·cial·ism noun ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm

Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is NO PRIVATE PROPERTY
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

www.merriam-webster.com...

cap·i·tal·ism noun ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-

Definition of CAPITALISM

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a FREE MARKET

www.merriam-webster.com...

These types of folks want to steal the fruits of your labors and not allow you to own property. Without property rights there is no freedom. You have a right to the fruits of your labors and if you work harder and smarter then others and gather more fruit of your labors then others they want you to redistribute it to them. It's nothing more then the same old socialism/fascism/communism wrapped in a different package don't be fooled by their obfuscation and false characterizations... Lenin Stalin Hitler Mao Castro etc. all preached the same rhetoric in the name of freedom and power to the people fomented revolution and then seized power when they saw the opportunity and oppressed their people and killed millions

We have already been taken over by these socialist/fascist/communist who have subverted the free market and that is why we are in the mess we are in today and heading off the cliff!

reply to post by hawkiye


I'm just going to repeat what I posted in another thread. Your dictionary definition is incomplete and obviously not written by socialists.

First watch this and keep in mind Chomsky is a linguist professor, knowing the meaning of words is his vocation.



If that's not enough here's some more education for you...

The word ‘anarchy’ comes from the Greek anarkhia, meaning contrary to authority or without a ruler, and was used in a derogatory sense until 1840, when it was adopted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to describe his political and social ideology. Proudhon argued that organization without government was both possible and desirable. In the evolution of political ideas, anarchism can be seen as an ultimate projection of both liberalism and socialism, and the differing strands of anarchist thought can be related to their emphasis on one or the other of these...
Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction' ch.1, p.1, 1995

The mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist-communism, which argues that property in land, natural resources, and the means of production should be held in mutual control by local communities, federating for innumerable joint purposes with other communes. It differs from state socialism in opposing the concept of any central authority. Some anarchists prefer to distinguish between anarchist-communism and collectivist anarchism in order to stress the obviously desirable freedom of an individual or family to possess the resources needed for living, while not implying the right to own the resources needed by others.

Anarcho-syndicalism puts its emphasis on the organized industrial workers who could, through a ‘social general strike’, expropriate the possessors of capital and thus engineer a workers’ take-over of industry and administration. Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.1 p.2, 1995

The 20th century experienced or witnessed every variety of state socialism, and learned that if its rulers are ruthless enough, they can impose, for a while, the most bizarre regimes and describe them as socialism. As socialism has been grossly misrepresented, so anarchism suffers from the widely held view that it is simply another variety of millenarianism, the belief in the eventual arrival, ‘after the revolution’, of a period of ultimate happiness when all the problems that beset humanity will have been solved, permanently. Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.3 p.31, 1995

So you know who Colin Ward is...

Colin Ward (14 August 1924 – 11 February 2010) was a British anarchist writer. He has been called "one of the greatest anarchist thinkers of the past half century, and a pioneering social historian." [1]

Colin Ward

As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people. From the book 'Modern Science and Anarchism' p.5, Peter Kropotkin, 1908

Kropotkin advocated a communist society free from central government and based on voluntary associations between workers. He wrote many books, pamphlets and articles, the most prominent being The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops, and his principal scientific offering, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. He also contributed the article on anarchism to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition.[1]

Peter Kropotkin

Is it necessary to repeat here the irrefutable arguments of Socialism which no bourgeois economist has yet succeeded in disproving? What is property, what is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both. From 'The Capitalist System' p.1, Michael Bakunin 1814-1876, Anarcho-Collectivist.

Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. The League [for Peace and Freedom] loudly proclaims the necessity of a radical social and economic reconstruction, having for its aim the emancipation of people's labor from the yoke of capital and property owners, a reconstruction based upon strict justice - neither juridical nor theological nor metaphysical justice, but simply human justice - upon positive science and upon the widest freedom.

Anarchism is stateless socialism. 'Stateless Socialism: Anarchism', Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876, Anarcho-Collectivist.

Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (Russian: Михаил Александрович Бакунин; IPA: [mʲɪxɐˈil ˌbaˈkunʲin]) (30 May [O.S. 18 May] 1814 – 1 July 1876) was a Russian revolutionary, philosopher, and theorist of collectivist anarchism. He has also often been called the father of anarchist theory in general.[2]

Mikhail Bakunin

Using your definitions all this would be contradictory. How much more evidence do you need?

Originally posted by ANOKreply to post by hawkiye

"I'm just going to repeat what I posted in another thread. Your dictionary definition is incomplete and obviously not written by socialists.First watch this and keep in mind Chomsky is a linguist professor, knowing the meaning of words is his vocation."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marxist wordsmith would more accurately describe Noam Chomsky - a radical leftist in the employ of the US government - hired to do their dirty-work.

From my post (above) -

I am of the opinion that any defense of Socialism is unconscionable on its face generally, and in a particular way it becomes more so when uttered from the mouths of babbling leftist pseudo intellectuals.

Originally posted by polarwarrior
reply to post by Gregorian

 

If you think Obama is a Marxist Leninist then I think you need to look up some basic definitions. I don't care what fox news has told you, he's clearly a capitalist.

No point arguing with you if you don't even know what communism or socialism is.

Try actually reading something by Marx or Lenin. (And please don't reply that you already have, my faith is humanity is low enough already).

edit on 12/12/12 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)

Actually Obama is a socialist and a Marxist. It's rather apparent in his books. What he is, is a Fabian socialist.
www.forbes.com... x_jb_1103bowyer.html

Thanks everyone for posting a lot of good info here

Exactly what I had in mind when writing the thread, I'm learning a lot.

reply to post by ANOK


Chomsky? Seriously LOL!

Notice Anok has to post long wordy posts to try and justify his false premises. All you need to do is ask him where is the successful example of his rhetoric and he can't answer but he will post another long wordy non-answer. Also ssk him where is his employee owned company? There are several in the US so why doesn't he and his ilk start their own and show us how its done? They can't answer again they are too lazy they want someone else to invest their time labor capital drive and action that it takes to start a successful enterprise then steal it from them and have it redistributed to themselves with out having to do any heavy lifting... And how would they do that? Bring government force to bear like all communist have done before them resulting in great death and destruction through out recent history!

Originally posted by polarwarriorreply to post by Gregorian

 

If you think Obama is a Marxist Leninist then I think you need to look up some basic definitions. I don't care what fox news has told you, he's clearly a capitalist.
No point arguing with you if you don't even know what communism or socialism is.
Try actually reading something by Marx or Lenin. (And please don't reply that you already have, my faith is humanity is low enough already).

edit on 12/12/12 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)

Please allow me to restore your faltering faith in 'humanity.' Over the years - and those are many - I have read all of the aforementioned material - admittedly quite reluctantly - for I don't take to charlatans and con-artists very well. It was easier getting through Mein Kampf - allegedly written by Adolf Hitler, and Charles Manson's biographical material was easier yet than to attempt to wallow though the dark swamp of Marx and Lenin.

BTW - You forgot to mention the inimical influences of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel on the likes of Joseph Stalin, Friedrich Engels, and Leon Trotsky as per their effect on propagandists and master liars such as Marx and Lenin whom you seem to so admire - better brush up.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by polarwarrior
reply to post by Gregorian

 

If you think Obama is a Marxist Leninist then I think you need to look up some basic definitions. I don't care what fox news has told you, he's clearly a capitalist.
No point arguing with you if you don't even know what communism or socialism is.
Try actually reading something by Marx or Lenin. (And please don't reply that you already have, my faith is humanity is low enough already).

edit on 12/12/12 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)

Actually Obama is a socialist and a Marxist. It's rather apparent in his books. What he is, is a Fabian socialist.
www.forbes.com... x_jb_1103bowyer.html

Are you using Buchanan as a source by any chance? Personaly I wouldn't let BHO off so lightly - because that would mean that we should see Obama as something like "Marxist/Leninist Light."

Here's a Pat Buchanan quote referencing BHO as a Fabian - --> “Barack Obama, in my judgment, is a Fabian socialist. You saw the redistribution, and by that I mean he’s not Bernie Sanders who is right out in the open and honest about it, but he’s a Fabian socialist that wants to move through gradualism and reform step by step until a majority of Americans are dependent upon government. And when that happens, the party of government wins every election.”

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by ANOK

 

Chomsky? Seriously LOL!

Shows your ignorance right there. Chomsky is a linguist and knows his stuff...

Linguistics is the scientific study of human language.[1][2][3][4][5] Linguistics can be broadly broken into three categories or subfields of study: language form, language meaning, and language in context. The earliest known activities in descriptive linguistics have been attributed to Panini around 500 BCE, with his analysis of Sanskrit in Ashtadhyayi.[6]

en.wikipedia.org...

Now how the hell would he stay a professor of language if he was incorrect about the definition of terms?

Notice Anok has to post long wordy posts to try and justify his false premises. All you need to do is ask him where is the successful example of his rhetoric and he can't answer but he will post another long wordy non-answer. Also ssk him where is his employee owned company? There are several in the US so why doesn't he and his ilk start their own and show us how its done? They can't answer again they are too lazy they want someone else to invest their time labor capital drive and action that it takes to start a successful enterprise then steal it from them and have it redistributed to themselves with out having to do any heavy lifting... And how would they do that? Bring government force to bear like all communist have done before them resulting in great death and destruction through out recent history!

There are plenty of examples of the success of worker owned companies, they are just ignored by the mainstream. You just talk a lot of uninformed ignorant BS.

At a basic – but critical – level, worker ownership creates and sustains jobs, production, and services, and offers possibilities for long-term employment stability and living wages.

www.otherworldsarepossible.org...

Employee-Owned Businesses Ignored by Mainstream Media

The words "employee-owned business" once evoked small shops with lofty ideals but sloppy business practices. But today, employee-owned businesses like John Lewis Partnerships deliver impressive results, raising the bar for the rest. They show greater resilience in a recession. They earn loyalty from customers and suppliers. They move nimbly in tough markets. Insights from today's leading employee-owned businesses can be applied broadly, pointing the way toward a more robust and sustainable economy.

Why We Need More Employee-Owned Businesses

It may not be the revolution’s dawn, but it’s certainly a glint in the darkness. On Monday, this country’s largest industrial labor union teamed up with the world’s largest worker-cooperative to present a plan that would put people to work in labor-driven enterprises that build worker power and communities, too.

Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

Shared ownership helps diversify rather than concentrate wealth – which is what we desperately need to do to revitalise our economy. It roots the value it generates in communities, keeping assets and resources from being transferred from local communities and low-wage employees to multinational corporations and their owners.

The key to global prosperity: worker ownership

You're blinded by capitalism. Stop thinking with your emotions and think logically. Wake up peoples capitalism is destroying your economy. Worker ownership is the only way to a stable economy.

BTW I apologize for the long wordy posts, you probably read the first couple of lines, but it would take a library of books for you to understand these concepts. I will also try my best to use smaller words and simpler grammar, just for you mate. Thanks for the tips.

reply to post by hawkiye


A serious question, what does this statement mean to you...

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin

Keep in mind that Bakunin is probably the most well known and respected anarchists. Look him up.

reply to post by ANOK


I've never heard that quote, but am pretty fond of it. Fits a lot of the themes of my OP... I said that the ideal societies of both are essentially the same.

Thanks for all the good input on the thread.

reply to post by ANOK

There are plenty of examples of the success of worker owned companies, they are just ignored by the mainstream. You just talk a lot of uninformed ignorant BS.

So you quote me saying there are several employee owned businesses then act like i said there isn't any and then have the nerve to say I am uninformed The you go on to post a bunch of stuff to show there are some... Another non-answer straw man... Sigh! Of course you never answer the question as to why you and your buddies don't start your own and show us all how it's done....

What you fail to understand or ignore is individuals started those employee owned businesses using capitalism and those who did the heavy lifting in getting them off the ground and up and running before they were employee owned make the lions share of the profits as they deserve otherwise those businesses would not exist.

By the way Chomsky is an idiot!

A serious question, what does this statement mean to you...

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin

Keep in mind that Bakunin is probably the most well known and respected anarchists. Look him up.

Funny how you want me to answer all your questions but you never answer mine... The statement is BS! anarchism is about as far from socialism as one can get. But I'll cee your question and raise you one. Can you tell me what Anarchist society in history was the most sophisticated society of its time and lasted 1000 years in relative peace and maximum freedom? And it damn sure was not socialist! I won't hold my breath..

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


But they're not the same. Socialism is the workers common ownership of the means of production. That is why it can be anarchist, in other words it doesn't need the state. Whereas Capitalism cannot exist without the state, because it needs state law to allow it, and protect it. The state we have is a direct result of capitalism.

Thanks for the thread.

Originally posted by hawkiye

So you quote me saying there are several employee owned businesses then act like i said there isn't any and then have the nerve to say I am uninformed

No, you said this...

"ll you need to do is ask him where is the successful example of his rhetoric and he can't answer but he will post another long wordy non-answer."

I answered you, what else do you want? Worker owned companies are examples of my rhetoric.

How about answering my question? Can you not tell me how anarchism is socialist, if it's what you claim it is?

reply to post by ANOK

I answered you, what else do you want? Worker owned companies are examples of my rhetoric.

No they are not because they do not operate according to your rhetoric. You live in fantasy land. But you have the opportunity to start one and operate it according to your rhetoric and show us all how its done. Which blows your whole argument out of the water that capitalists own all the resources preventing you from doing so. WE have been over this now in several threads and still you avoid answering.