Capitalism doesn't and IS NOT working, it's destructive and creatives poor social incentives

Did you hear the joke about the sheep complaining to the wolf about his unfair system of cooking lamb.

A wise man once said
Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself.

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Can you give me an example on a class less communistic country that did not have an implemented power pyramid system both politically and economically?

Cuba is a bit on the socialistic side but it is not classless, China had their party and Russia had Ukraine as the place where the important "some people are more equal then others" could have fun as tourists.

Maybe your perception of "class" is wrong.

Communism's doctrine of a classless society really only implies having a single class. In every other social paradigm, there has always been two fundamental classes: those who own the means of production, and those who do not. Under the doctrine of communism, all people own the means of production.

However, under Communism there will be classes--those higher in the party, those who manage "the people's", means of production, those who are smart and can manipulate the system for their own benefit. There never will be a "single class" society and Communism will never, ever reach it's stated goal for the simple reason that people are not insects. Some people have more ambition, or talent, or intelligence,or beauty, or drive than someone else. People have greed and jealousy and anger and love and lust and compassion--all in different balances in every individual. True communism is only possible if you have mindless automatons and will always fail if society is comprised of human beings.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: Vovin

Maybe I phrased it in a way you could not understand the point I was trying to make. From my point of view there is no real example on a finished communist system and all systems that have been labeled communist in current human history was in fact stuck in a power pyramid class dictatorship and would in fact be defined as state capitalism. My point is that I want an example of a social community that exists that does not have the power pyramid. And I would be amazed if someone in fact gave me an example of as you would call it "finished communist nation society without the power pyramid".

Second, is that there are a lot of stages involved in the accumulation process of changing the entire social paradigm of material existence that takes generations to implement. This is just like every other paradigm change in history, where it takes hundreds of years before the paradigm really takes off.

That means it will always fail if you do it like this because the Power pyramid will not give up the power they have. The only way to implement Communism is to implement it fully direct with an extreme preparation and people consent that this is what is going to exist in this region and no one who is opposed it should be allowed to create a power pyramid to enslave others.

Absolutely wrong again.

It's not capitalism when capitalists do not own the mode of production.

It's a very simple definition: whoever owns the mode of production dictates the ideology. All other definitions are irrelevant and wrong.

And you're pretty much making a strawman argument when you say "well true communism has never occurred in practice", because you're both right and wrong. In reality, the laws of motion, geographical culture, technological capability, geopolitics all influence ideology in practice, thus it is impossible for any ideology to be fully implemented.

If one ever was, it would be utopia, and society would stagnate and collapse and it would be the end of the human race (hence what capitalism is becoming in some ways). In analogy, imagine what would happen to ecosystems on Earth if the Earth were to stop turning. The fact that the Earth turns means that everything keeps moving. Laws of motion.

Capitalism and Communism are not the only two options. It is not one or the other. There is no pure Capitalist country anywhere and there haven't been for a long time. Communism is equally flawed.

A political system has to work with an economic one to be successful.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Can you give me an example on a class less communistic country that did not have an implemented power pyramid system both politically and economically?

Cuba is a bit on the socialistic side but it is not classless, China had their party and Russia had Ukraine as the place where the important "some people are more equal then others" could have fun as tourists.

Maybe your perception of "class" is wrong.

Communism's doctrine of a classless society really only implies having a single class. In every other social paradigm, there has always been two fundamental classes: those who own the means of production, and those who do not. Under the doctrine of communism, all people own the means of production.

However, under Communism there will be classes--those higher in the party, those who manage "the people's", means of production, those who are smart and can manipulate the system for their own benefit. There never will be a "single class" society and Communism will never, ever reach it's stated goal for the simple reason that people are not insects. Some people have more ambition, or talent, or intelligence,or beauty, or drive than someone else. People have greed and jealousy and anger and love and lust and compassion--all in different balances in every individual. True communism is only possible if you have mindless automatons and will always fail if society is comprised of human beings.

Have you ever stopped to look around you in your capitalist society? Have you ever really talked to people casually about the bigger picture?

We definitely live in an insect-like society where our status is typically determined before we are even born.

As for natural hierarchies, they exist no matter what, because that's a human thing. What communism provides is a different set of laws to provide social guarantees of social equality. Universal rights are guaranteed by the state, especially the right to equal opportunity.

The communist doctrine that Lenin set in place in the USSR had various steps. Needless to say, it did not make it all the way. The pinnacle step of communism is the abolishment of the state as a redundant institution, because as Lenin describes the state in any previous paradigm becomes separated from the people and exploits the people. However, the USSR could not abolish the state when it was continuously in a state of war with capitalist forces.

originally posted by: Leonidas
Capitalism and Communism are not the only two options. It is not one or the other. There is no pure Capitalist country anywhere and there haven't been for a long time. Communism is equally flawed.

A political system has to work with an economic one to be successful.

Fascism is advanced capitalism. By that I don't mean men marching around with swastikas- I mean corporations replacing nation-states altogether. This would mean disparity of the human species like never before. Combine "Brave New World" and "1984". Dystopia.

originally posted by: onequestion

Yes I am saying it,

CAPITALISM DOESN'T and IS NOT WORKIG



So people any suggestions ?

Uh-huh!

Obviously, your education is severely lacking.

business.time.com...

originally posted by: jacobe001
a reply to: MarlinGrace
Using that logic, Big Business is also to blame for our corrupt politicians when they buy them. Big Business is to blame when they accept food stamps. Noone was holding a gun to theirs heads to do these things.

Actually I think you missed the logic. It is up to us to vote out bad politicians, right now we need to work overtime. To blame big business for corrupt politicians is to blame dope dealers for drug addicts. You don't have to take the money, and you don't have to take the drugs. It's simple really when you find politicians doing wrong as a citizen do your due diligence and vote them out. In essence fire them.

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Can you give me an example on a class less communistic country that did not have an implemented power pyramid system both politically and economically?

Cuba is a bit on the socialistic side but it is not classless, China had their party and Russia had Ukraine as the place where the important "some people are more equal then others" could have fun as tourists.

Maybe your perception of "class" is wrong.

Communism's doctrine of a classless society really only implies having a single class. In every other social paradigm, there has always been two fundamental classes: those who own the means of production, and those who do not. Under the doctrine of communism, all people own the means of production.

However, under Communism there will be classes--those higher in the party, those who manage "the people's", means of production, those who are smart and can manipulate the system for their own benefit. There never will be a "single class" society and Communism will never, ever reach it's stated goal for the simple reason that people are not insects. Some people have more ambition, or talent, or intelligence,or beauty, or drive than someone else. People have greed and jealousy and anger and love and lust and compassion--all in different balances in every individual. True communism is only possible if you have mindless automatons and will always fail if society is comprised of human beings.

Have you ever stopped to look around you in your capitalist society? Have you ever really talked to people casually about the bigger picture?

We definitely live in an insect-like society where our status is typically determined before we are even born.

As for natural hierarchies, they exist no matter what, because that's a human thing. What communism provides is a different set of laws to provide social guarantees of social equality. Universal rights are guaranteed by the state, especially the right to equal opportunity.

The communist doctrine that Lenin set in place in the USSR had various steps. Needless to say, it did not make it all the way. The pinnacle step of communism is the abolishment of the state as a redundant institution, because as Lenin describes the state in any previous paradigm becomes separated from the people and exploits the people. However, the USSR could not abolish the state when it was continuously in a state of war with capitalist forces.

I don't know where you live but in the US you are mistaken. When you look at the technology created by someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs what would happen if they were born and accepted their insect like society and the status of their birth?

If you are to believe the propaganda of the Obama administration just look at the road he took to achieve the highest position in the world.

BTW the USSR is not a good example of a viable system, and you cannot blame 1000's of deaths by Lenin and millions of deaths by Stalin on war with a capitalist society. Stalin made Hitler look like a Sunday school teacher.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Can you give me an example on a class less communistic country that did not have an implemented power pyramid system both politically and economically?

Cuba is a bit on the socialistic side but it is not classless, China had their party and Russia had Ukraine as the place where the important "some people are more equal then others" could have fun as tourists.

Maybe your perception of "class" is wrong.

Communism's doctrine of a classless society really only implies having a single class. In every other social paradigm, there has always been two fundamental classes: those who own the means of production, and those who do not. Under the doctrine of communism, all people own the means of production.

However, under Communism there will be classes--those higher in the party, those who manage "the people's", means of production, those who are smart and can manipulate the system for their own benefit. There never will be a "single class" society and Communism will never, ever reach it's stated goal for the simple reason that people are not insects. Some people have more ambition, or talent, or intelligence,or beauty, or drive than someone else. People have greed and jealousy and anger and love and lust and compassion--all in different balances in every individual. True communism is only possible if you have mindless automatons and will always fail if society is comprised of human beings.

Have you ever stopped to look around you in your capitalist society? Have you ever really talked to people casually about the bigger picture?

We definitely live in an insect-like society where our status is typically determined before we are even born.

As for natural hierarchies, they exist no matter what, because that's a human thing. What communism provides is a different set of laws to provide social guarantees of social equality. Universal rights are guaranteed by the state, especially the right to equal opportunity.

The communist doctrine that Lenin set in place in the USSR had various steps. Needless to say, it did not make it all the way. The pinnacle step of communism is the abolishment of the state as a redundant institution, because as Lenin describes the state in any previous paradigm becomes separated from the people and exploits the people. However, the USSR could not abolish the state when it was continuously in a state of war with capitalist forces.

I don't know where you live but in the US you are mistaken. When you look at the technology created by someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs what would happen if they were born and accepted their insect like society and the status of their birth?

If you are to believe the propaganda of the Obama administration just look at the road he took to achieve the highest position in the world.

BTW the USSR is not a good example of a viable system, and you cannot blame 1000's of deaths by Lenin and millions of deaths by Stalin on war with a capitalist society. Stalin made Hitler look like a Sunday school teacher.

I'm no Yankee Doodle, thank you very much.

And if you're gonna whine about people dying under a different ideology than your own instead of accepting that your's had murdered hundreds of millions, then you're not worth my time. I'm above the hypocrisy when it comes to understanding our very existence as a species, instead of accepting the freedom to get fat and watch TV all day (on land that your ideology wiped out the original inhabitants of because of their ideology, no less).

a reply to: Vovin

I think it's real important to note what is simple, dry historic fact vs. what literally fills libraries for the material written in debate surrounding the facts. The facts themselves are pretty stark though, however we want to take the meaning.


Source: Twentieth Century Atlas - Historical Body Count

Hundreds of millions murdered by whom, for what you're referring to?

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Can you give me an example on a class less communistic country that did not have an implemented power pyramid system both politically and economically?

Cuba is a bit on the socialistic side but it is not classless, China had their party and Russia had Ukraine as the place where the important "some people are more equal then others" could have fun as tourists.

Maybe your perception of "class" is wrong.

Communism's doctrine of a classless society really only implies having a single class. In every other social paradigm, there has always been two fundamental classes: those who own the means of production, and those who do not. Under the doctrine of communism, all people own the means of production.

However, under Communism there will be classes--those higher in the party, those who manage "the people's", means of production, those who are smart and can manipulate the system for their own benefit. There never will be a "single class" society and Communism will never, ever reach it's stated goal for the simple reason that people are not insects. Some people have more ambition, or talent, or intelligence,or beauty, or drive than someone else. People have greed and jealousy and anger and love and lust and compassion--all in different balances in every individual. True communism is only possible if you have mindless automatons and will always fail if society is comprised of human beings.

Have you ever stopped to look around you in your capitalist society? Have you ever really talked to people casually about the bigger picture?

We definitely live in an insect-like society where our status is typically determined before we are even born.

As for natural hierarchies, they exist no matter what, because that's a human thing. What communism provides is a different set of laws to provide social guarantees of social equality. Universal rights are guaranteed by the state, especially the right to equal opportunity.

The communist doctrine that Lenin set in place in the USSR had various steps. Needless to say, it did not make it all the way. The pinnacle step of communism is the abolishment of the state as a redundant institution, because as Lenin describes the state in any previous paradigm becomes separated from the people and exploits the people. However, the USSR could not abolish the state when it was continuously in a state of war with capitalist forces.

Nonsense. We have a very upwardly mobile society for those who put in the time and talent. The majority of our wealthy are first generation--they made the money themselves. You can rise from a grocery bagger to business owner in the US still.

The Soviet Union failed because their founding premise and steps are flawed. Communists like to blame everyone but themselves.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

And you talk about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Billionaires who made their billions from exploitation. Funny how the richest people make their money from the poorest people, eh?

Almost as if money is actually a representation of social capital, and those with it are powerful because those without must become dependent on labouring their whole lives.

Tell me Mr. American Dream, what is so great about being a billionaire? Why are you trying to tell me that being a billionaire is a great success of capitalism?

The only thing being a billionaire means is that you know how to play the system, how to accumulate the wealth from many others for yourself. Over half of America lives paycheque to paycheque, and lose everything if they miss it once.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Vovin

I think it's real important to note what is simple, dry historic fact vs. what literally fills libraries for the material written in debate surrounding the facts. The facts themselves are pretty stark though, however we want to take the meaning.

Source: Twentieth Century Atlas - Historical Body Count

Hundreds of millions murdered by whom, for what you're referring to?

There was a lot more people in the Americas than what your list claims.

And try 50+ million due to direct and indirect American action during the Cold War around the globe. And then add a few million for all the people your country killed in the Middle East in the last two decades.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Can you give me an example on a class less communistic country that did not have an implemented power pyramid system both politically and economically?

Cuba is a bit on the socialistic side but it is not classless, China had their party and Russia had Ukraine as the place where the important "some people are more equal then others" could have fun as tourists.

Maybe your perception of "class" is wrong.

Communism's doctrine of a classless society really only implies having a single class. In every other social paradigm, there has always been two fundamental classes: those who own the means of production, and those who do not. Under the doctrine of communism, all people own the means of production.

However, under Communism there will be classes--those higher in the party, those who manage "the people's", means of production, those who are smart and can manipulate the system for their own benefit. There never will be a "single class" society and Communism will never, ever reach it's stated goal for the simple reason that people are not insects. Some people have more ambition, or talent, or intelligence,or beauty, or drive than someone else. People have greed and jealousy and anger and love and lust and compassion--all in different balances in every individual. True communism is only possible if you have mindless automatons and will always fail if society is comprised of human beings.

Have you ever stopped to look around you in your capitalist society? Have you ever really talked to people casually about the bigger picture?

We definitely live in an insect-like society where our status is typically determined before we are even born.

As for natural hierarchies, they exist no matter what, because that's a human thing. What communism provides is a different set of laws to provide social guarantees of social equality. Universal rights are guaranteed by the state, especially the right to equal opportunity.

The communist doctrine that Lenin set in place in the USSR had various steps. Needless to say, it did not make it all the way. The pinnacle step of communism is the abolishment of the state as a redundant institution, because as Lenin describes the state in any previous paradigm becomes separated from the people and exploits the people. However, the USSR could not abolish the state when it was continuously in a state of war with capitalist forces.

Nonsense. We have a very upwardly mobile society for those who put in the time and talent. The majority of our wealthy are first generation--they made the money themselves. You can rise from a grocery bagger to business owner in the US still.

The Soviet Union failed because their founding premise and steps are flawed. Communists like to blame everyone but themselves.

So you're a navy man, eh?

How many billions do you have from putting in your "time and talent"?

How many enemies have you killed overseas to protect your country?

EDIT:

And as for your country, it will fail because you and your people only blame yourselves for not working hard enough.

(Of course, in realityland, being a billionaire wouldn't mean anything if everybody was a billionaire, would it)

a reply to: Vovin

Please show me where you can support the idea there were more people than my list claims. My list is fairly representative of what I can attest to being taught in American colleges right now, as I've pretty much been through finals testing in part on everything that list covers.

Like they say...History doesn't record the happy times in bold, just the horrors and conflict. So, it's what gets taught and that's what I know to be roughly factual to history. It's what I'll present and stand behind...roughly...as historic fact until I see something credible to correct something on it.

I'm a student of history. I'm sincere in being interested if something solid contradicts or corrects a number in a substantial way.

At least that one does note many to die under Mao's communism weren't outright shot the way it happened more in Russia. Mismanagement of food and land by the CCP and Mao is what I think it's referring to there.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Vovin

Please show me where you can support the idea there were more people than my list claims. My list is fairly representative of what I can attest to being taught in American colleges right now, as I've pretty much been through finals testing in part on everything that list covers.

Like they say...History doesn't record the happy times in bold, just the horrors and conflict. So, it's what gets taught and that's what I know to be roughly factual to history. It's what I'll present and stand behind...roughly...as historic fact until I see something credible to correct something on it.

I'm a student of history. I'm sincere in being interested if something solid contradicts or corrects a number in a substantial way.

At least that one does note many to die under Mao's communism weren't outright shot the way it happened more in Russia. Mismanagement of food and land by the CCP and Mao is what I think it's referring to there.

Considering this isn't an academic forum, I don't have to waste my time trying to prove anything. Explain to me why I should waste my time, when most people in this thread have a severe mental inability to even define what ideologies are and instead blather on about the same old anti-Russian fearmongering crap that was cool way back in the 1960s?

There is no point in putting any serious effort to try and prove anything to anyone here. And you know that too, so why ask it of me?

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: MarlinGrace

And you talk about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Billionaires who made their billions from exploitation. Funny how the richest people make their money from the poorest people, eh?

Almost as if money is actually a representation of social capital, and those with it are powerful because those without must become dependent on labouring their whole lives.

Tell me Mr. American Dream, what is so great about being a billionaire? Why are you trying to tell me that being a billionaire is a great success of capitalism?

The only thing being a billionaire means is that you know how to play the system, how to accumulate the wealth from many others for yourself. Over half of America lives paycheque to paycheque, and lose everything if they miss it once.

But that whole statement is completely untrue. They were middle class kids who started in their garage and produced an innovated product that people wanted for a price they were willing to pay. They were not wealthy starting out, they were average. They built their money by providing something people wanted--not exploiting them.

Methinks your ideology blinds you to the facts.