It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: Is Capitalism leading us into a Dictatorship?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
All state structures, be they communist, socialist, capitalist, or anything else end up with an elite class who end up ruling with little care for the common man and extracting as much off the backs of the common man as is possible. Is this an indictment of capitalism? No, it's an indictment of the idea of intentionally concentrating the right to use force in the hands of a few.




posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

But that isn't capitalism, that's mercantilism. In the case of actual capitalism (not mercantilism), show me the resulting dictatorships.


It looks like you didn't even see my post above. Guatemala is a prime example from a dictatorship being the result of capitalism. Take a look at this thread and you'll see.

Over the years 100000 people were murdered by that regime.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

China was communist, saw how disasterous that was, and embraced what amounts to mercantilism. As a result, the heavy hand of communism has lessened, thus proving the point that wrestling economic power away from politicians, even in part, reduces authoritarianism. This highlights the success of capitalism in reducing despotism, not the reverse.



China no longer adheres to the economics of communism. However, it is still politically authoritarian. Capitalism has not reduced despotism there - just look at its strict controls of free speech/repression of dissendant groups etc.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kedfr
China no longer adheres to the economics of communism. However, it is still politically authoritarian. Capitalism has not reduced despotism there - just look at its strict controls of free speech/repression of dissendant groups etc.


Would you rather live in communist China, or present day China if those were your only two choices?

Be honest now.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
It looks like you didn't even see my post above. Guatemala is a prime example from a dictatorship being the result of capitalism.


Ugh. You don't know what mercantilism is. Look it up.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
It's a result of capitalism dude.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Muaddib, sorry to inform you but that is one of the first things you learn at University.

There is no Socialist or Communist State that has ever existed.


Sorry Odium, but that is the first thing that is taught by liberal professors that are trying to revive the communist agenda once again.... That's what is happening.



Originally posted by Odium
As for everyone having the same say, it is known as a direct democracy and does exist. The U.S.S.R. used Stalinism and I can go on to each Nation that claims to have been one of these. It is about time you accept there never has been one and go learn what socialism and communism actually are.


No, it is actually time for people like yourself, and others, to stop claiming none of these systems have existed, it is time to stop trying to cover for the damage that Communist/socialist countries have inflicted to the world....and it is time for liberal professors to stop propagating the Communist/Socialist agenda in Universities.... People should go to Universities to learn, not to be "indoctrinated" into Communism/Socialism.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
As for communism versus capitalism:

Russia: Run by corporations/criminals [and actively overwriting their communist past]
China: CCP full of capitalist multi-millionaires while others forage for food, and North Koreans starve.

If you think the world is capitalism versus communism, you're blind or uninformed.



Odium Said: What if you merge many of those groups together their power increases and increases to a point where they can rig and buy elections. With the threat of shutting everything down.

Yes, and when asking this question, let us direct it toward the more subtle ways companies and clubs (gangs of companies) can alter America. EXAMPLE: BigPharma and Wal-Mart. When a Wal-Mart goes into a town, go ask the local pharmacist what that does to his business. It's no secret how much business Sam Walton and family make off of selling drugs to Americans. Now how about the advertising of these legal drugs on TV, and particularly during the daytime when kids are watching? All the drug commercials have animated 3D and 2D characters, which appeal to kids. Oh brave new world where I can have a drug cocktail custom made and paid for by my corporate employer's health care coverage. Have you seen the prices the drug companies charge for medicine? It's not hard to produce some of these drugs. It is the research you are paying for. Oh, and the millions BigPharma spends on lobbying [radio, TV, etc] against legislation designed to control them (CA is a good current example). Your inflated drug prices are also paying the cushy multi-million salaries of their officers and stock-kickbacks to board members.


kedfr Said:What is clear is that at its heart, capitalism has no morality and will quite happily side with a dictator as long as it protects its economic interests. China is a modern-day example of this. Historically, the Nazis are another.

Excellent point, particularly since many companies today were Nazi-sympathetic during WW2. I have a book about IBM and how their German subsidiary, Deutch-MAchinen Holligraph (sp) actually made the computers and punchcards for the prison camps. They had little punched computer holes for "Gay", and "Jew". Quick, deadly and profitable! That's Big Blue.


muzzleflash Said: Who are Technocrats? well, IF USA shifts into a technocracy; the current elites whom control our gov't today *big $$$* will also manage to keep their power indefinatly in the Technocracy

I voted you way above. Excellent thoughts.

Personally, speaking as a person who's close to the top of the techno-pyramid, I can say that any such "technocrats" would have to win over the actual "techs" who are codewriters or engineers. Let's say that you envision a world of puppet corporations which are totally rising and falling based on what their engineers and designers come up with. So they could easily decide to control technology, together. An example of this would be how you see CD-Rom drives partitioned out along a particular schedule. Although they knew how to make 64x speed CD-Rom drives, they had to space it out with 4x, then 8x, then 16x, and so on. They wanted the consumers to buy all the steps in between, so there was a retail conspiracy, so to speak, to distribute tech to the world in a certain way. But even if they end up controlling the world like this, they'd still have to convince the engineers, scientists and programmers, else those people will end up making their tech (or their hacks of gov't tech like Torvald's LINUX) available for free through the GPL and stuff like that.

Technocracy would become true person-to-person democracy. BushCo will see to it that none of this happens, I am afraid.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
As for communism versus capitalism:

Russia: Run by corporations/criminals [and actively overwriting their communist past]


Russia has been "using" Capitalism to stay afloat and to stenghten their military. It is my opinion that Communism never really died over there. It was just a farse as Anatoly Golytsin has been warning the US government at least since the 60s, along with some other Russian defectors who all say the same thing.... The coup and sudden death of Communism in Russia was a sham. one that has been part of their plans for decades.



Originally posted by smallpeeps
China: CCP full of capitalist multi-millionaires while others forage for food, and North Koreans starve.

If you think the world is capitalism versus communism, you're blind or uninformed.


The Chinese are not Capitalists, they are also using Capitalism because it is their only way to keep their oppressive regime alive.

As for your last statement... personal attacks does not make anyone right, and it does not prove one bit of what you claimed.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Muaddib, sorry to inform you but that is one of the first things you learn at University.

There is no Socialist or Communist State that has ever existed.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Sorry Odium, but that is the first thing that is taught by liberal professors that are trying to revive the communist agenda once again.... That's what is happening.


You do make me laugh some days. You have no idea who my Professor is, yet you are still rude enough to make a personal attack on him. Oh well, just so you are aware he's a member of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom and used to work for them under Margaret Thatcher. He is far from a 'liberal'.


Originally posted by Odium
As for everyone having the same say, it is known as a direct democracy and does exist. The U.S.S.R. used Stalinism and I can go on to each Nation that claims to have been one of these. It is about time you accept there never has been one and go learn what socialism and communism actually are.

Originally posted by Muaddib
No, it is actually time for people like yourself, and others, to stop claiming none of these systems have existed, it is time to stop trying to cover for the damage that Communist/socialist countries have inflicted to the world....and it is time for liberal professors to stop propagating the Communist/Socialist agenda in Universities.... People should go to Universities to learn, not to be "indoctrinated" into Communism/Socialism.


Yes, people do go to learn and by claiming these Government's followed the system of Communism/Socialism, you are allowing them to be indoctrinated in another system.

If people are to move on they need to bother to read the books Marx, Lenin, et al, published on how they wished the system to be ran and used and then check it against the U.S.S.R, China, et al and they will notice that their is a vast difference. Until people bother to do that on almost every level of politics and for every political system they will still be trapped in the 'Dark Ages'.

You also might want to take your own advice, "personal attacks does not make anyone right, and it does not prove one bit of what you claimed" I suggest you stop making them against Professors, when you have no clue who they are.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by kedfr
China no longer adheres to the economics of communism. However, it is still politically authoritarian. Capitalism has not reduced despotism there - just look at its strict controls of free speech/repression of dissendant groups etc.


Would you rather live in communist China, or present day China if those were your only two choices?

Be honest now.


It depends. China has pretty much abandoned its welfare state. The rich are making a lot of money through gross exploitation of labour (often practically slavery). If you are poor then it is a dreadful country to live in.

China truly is the modern day equivalent of the African slave trade. However, instead of African slaves in the Caribbean/Southern US contributing to Britain's wealth, Chinese exploitation of labour has meant companies have been able to offer low low prices on consumer goods. We in the west have had low inflation and consistent growth for the past 10 years or so as a result of China's grotesque labour policy and extremist capitalism.

In any case, China is still authoritarian. The fact that if you are wealthy you can buy mobile phones and nice cars does not change that. Wealth allied to the trappings of consumerism make the nouveau riche in China unlikely to want to rebel against the government - indeed they will support China's authoritarian rule as it has led to them making a lot of money. For everyone else, free speech, democracy and pretty much everything else that democratic countries take for granted are ruthlessly stamped out.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
"Capitalism" isn't leading us into dictatorship because true laissez-faire capitalism doesn't exist. The vile and perverted quasi-capitalistic fascism that is practiced in the US is indeed a threat to our freedoms (although not as much of one as the thread starter seems to believe), but that's expressly because it's NOT truly capitalism.

As for Sam Walton's rise to success-- why do you think he donated so much money to Clinton and the Democrats, and why do you think Clinton cozied up to China-- the source of virtually all of WalMart's imports? Sam Walton didn't sell his soul-- he did what so many do in our fascistic system-- he purchased political clout and used it for his own ends.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Capitalism isn't leading us into a dictatorship for one reason...

We don't have a capitalist system. Our system is very anti-competitive. Its a hybrid system. Call it corporate communism if you like. EVeryone lives to serve big business. Tax breaks are for big business and the workers carry the tax load. There is no true land ownership here which is what communists countries are known for you. You just rent your land from the government. If you don't pay the government the expected yearly fee they take your property. Also land can be taken from you so a business can make a profit off of it. I think corporate communism is a good term for what we have here. A government for the corporations, of the corporations and by the corporations.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Capitalism isn't leading us into a dictatorship for one reason...

We don't have a capitalist system. Our system is very anti-competitive. Its a hybrid system. Call it corporate communism if you like. EVeryone lives to serve big business. Tax breaks are for big business and the workers carry the tax load. There is no true land ownership here which is what communists countries are known for you. You just rent your land from the government. If you don't pay the government the expected yearly fee they take your property. Also land can be taken from you so a business can make a profit off of it. I think corporate communism is a good term for what we have here. A government for the corporations, of the corporations and by the corporations.


Is the current system anti-competitive? To an extent it probably is, although the rapid rise of companies like Google/Microsoft/Yahoo in recent years are examples of a system that may allow big businesses to flourish but it does not prevent new companies from growing in wealth and power.

I think that entrepreneurial ambition in the US is much like the American Dream. Although it is a little more possible to rise from nothing to greatness in the US than elsewhere in the world, it is still very unlikely: the cards are stacked up against you and luck and good timing are just as important (if not more so) than hard work and ability.

Is the system hybrid? Certainly, but then again all economies are mixed to a greater or lesser degree - there is no such thing as an economy run on pure laissez faire economics, just as there is no pure economy run on a strictly socialist basis.

Even so, the term corporate-communism is an oxymoron. A capitalist system means that power is in the hands of the businesses who make their money through capital rather than land ownership (as in a feudal system). Therefore, what you have described is merely an aspect of capitalism rather than a new stage of it.

Marx would argue that capitalism is very much dominated by the bourgeoisie: a capitalist government would protect the interests of the affluent and powerful middle classes, because it is itself bourgeouis.

Communism, by contrast, is a system whereby power is invested in the power of the workers in communal society. Industries are nationalised and there is no exploitation of labour (unlike capitalism) as the workers themselves 'own' the means of production.

While capitalists governments long have a history of pandering to the whims of big business this has been going on for a very long time. Perhaps the Bush administration is more transparent in this but it merely following a tradition that goes back to the 19th century and probably before. Modern day governments need the support of big business and they nurture them by protecting their interests - often at the expense of the working class.

New Labour is a good example of this - it was only when the Labour Party abandoned Clause IV of its party constitution (committing the party to the common ownership of means of production - ie. nationalism) that they won the support of big business and became truly electable. Now many big businesses support New Labour more than their historical bed-fellows, the Conservative Party.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Manifesto for world dictatorship

Now we know. The Americans have spelt it out in black and white. There will be a world government, but not one even pretending to be comprised of representatives of its nation states through the United Nations. The United States will rule, and not according to painstakingly developed international law and norms, but by what is in its interests.

In declaring itself dictator of the world, The United States will have no accountability to non-United States citizens. It will bomb who it likes when it likes, and change regimes when and as it sees fit, it will not be subject to investigations for war crimes, for torture, or for breaches of fundamental human rights.

When it asks the United Nations to move against Iraq, it is not demanding agreement to a strong case for action. It now admits it has no evidence that Iraq is preapring to use weapons of mass destruction against any other country. The Americans have stopped pretending, and now demand outright capitulation to its hegemony. The world will be policed in American interests. Full stop.

So now American history screams from background discussion to the forefront of debate. The Americans - despite their promises to be a benevolent dictatorship, do not aim to build, stabilise, and promote democracies. They aim to impose puppets, and agree to Faustian deals which brutalise and disempower citizens. They pay no heed to the disastrous results of such dictatorships when imposed in the past.

Australia's choice is to become a non-enfranchised satellite state of the United States - and thus responsible for its aggression and a legitimate target for those fighting to win back countries the Americans take by force, or to fight like hell to save the United Nation's dream of world government by negotiation.

The United Nations itself - the dream of multilateral solutions to problems only the world acting together can solve, is on the brink of collapse. This could be one hell of a debate, and I can't see Labor going for American unilateralism and the crushing of the UN. Yes, it's true, much of the sentiment against United State's behaviour is anti-American. It's also pro-Australian, French, or whatever country you feel you belong to.

The stunning New York Times scoop - publishing President Bush's new national security strategy, to be given to Congress - is a frightening document. But as David Plumb said in The Crusade's progress, "It is time to stop being outraged by the directness and aggression of realpolitic". What can the rest of the world do?

Whole article: Manifesto for World dictatorship


df1

posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Capitalism isn't leading us into a dictatorship for one reason...

We don't have a capitalist system. Our system is very anti-competitive. Its a hybrid system. Call it corporate communism if you like. EVeryone lives to serve big business. Tax breaks are for big business and the workers carry the tax load. There is no true land ownership here which is what communists countries are known for you. You just rent your land from the government. If you don't pay the government the expected yearly fee they take your property. Also land can be taken from you so a business can make a profit off of it. I think corporate communism is a good term for what we have here. A government for the corporations, of the corporations and by the corporations.

I voted you a WATS on this one.

Capitalism is a great idea, some society should give it a try. The coporate conspiracy is all around us. The game is over and the corporations have won.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Lets face the simple fact:
Capitalism doesnt take our freedoms away
Communism doesn't take our freedoms away
Fascism doesn't take our freedoms away
No government takes our freedoms away.
WE GIVE our freedoms away.

Look its like this. Corporations are interested in making profit. That is their main goal and always has been. If government has no involvement in business, business cant make any money by influencing government. If government has almost no power to do anything, business has less and less incentive to be involved in politics.

The united states government is HIGHLY involved in business and such (regulations, certian rules, etc.). This gives increasing incentive for business to corrupt the government. Why? Because the more rules there are, the less money is being made. The more they can corrupt the government back to doing nothing, the more profits they can make. The thing is they have an advantage as well. Companies that dont corrupt, are punished by rules.

In the end though, none of that is relevent to this topic. Why? Because it doesn't matter if you blame government or business, your still blaming the wrong people. The affiliation between business and government is merely what has happened in the recent years. It is the reason people believe business controls government. Since business bought out government, people believe business controls government. Not true.

Think back to this scenario. One kid is being picked on by another kid, the bully. The boy pays the bully everyday to leave him alone. Now look at that situation would you say the bully is in control or the kid paying the bully is in control. The bully is of course. The bully leaves him alone for a price, that doesn't mean the boy CONTROLS the bully, just pays him to leave him alone. The boy has NO control over the bully.
Though it may seem that the bully obeys the boy, he isn't doing that. He is choosing to do what he wants, given the circumstances. He can at anytime say "ya know what screw this" and destroy the kid.

The government is the bully. It has the power to destroy any corporation they want. Business doesnt control the bully, they pay them off to get out without being destroyed by the bully. Where do we fit in? Well we are an even more little kid. We are being bullied by the other kids (business). Business gets bullied by the bigger bully (government). There is one variable that we are missing in this scenario though. We, the smallest kid, hold the most control.

Why aren't we the big bully then? Well the truth is we don't realize our power. while the medium sized government is picking on the business, The business is picking on a 6 foot 5 300 pound star linebacker who doesn't realize he could trample both of them in a single moment. He is like a little kid. He is unaware of what he is capable of because hes easily influenced. We are that little kid. We are easily influenced, we are being picked on, and we hold the power of 1000 armies.

Now that was all metaphorical of course. We aren't a 6 foot 5 300 pound linebacker jacked like we were all on steroids. We dont have that physical strength sort to speak. Our power lies with our faith. No Im not talking religiously. Im talking about our faith in the dollar. Our faith in the market. Our faith in the government. Our faith is our weapons. Right now our weapon has been turned around and pointed at our own heads. We are using or own weapon against ourselves. We are like little children and have been manipulated to use our own weapons against ourselves. We are being manipulated to think we HAVE TO have our faith in certian thing or unimaginable consequences follow.

What do we do? A better question is this: What power is left when the power of wealth is gone? The power of numbers. Who has the most power...we do? Its ironic. The money that cannot have worth without or faith, is the same thing being used to dictate us. When we fall out of the manipulation, we fall into freedom. We are told to put our faith in this money, which is used to control the large majority of americans and people around the globe. Its interesting that people could put faith into what is destroying everything they loved. When you say that dollar is worth more then a piece of paper, you buy more then just TV or a microwave or a table, you buy your own oppression. You do this by saying only this person (group of people) can make the money, and this money is worth whatever it says on it. If it says 50 dollars on it, it can buy a video game. If it says 1000 it can buy a big screen tv, and so on and so forth. You know what that is, thats a dictatorship. You are saying a group of people are allowed to have unlimited wealth that you will vouge for, and in return they will dictate you.

No government or business causes a dictatorship...you and I do. We cause a dictatorship. We are most responsible. What we say is the rule of the land. Its not the 1% minorities fault for manipulating us, its the other 99% fault for letting it happen.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Unrestrained Capitalism is a form of Social Darwinism, imo, and it does lead to dictatorship, as I believe we are witnessing now in the US. Integrity and morals are sacrificed to a great extent in the quest for the almighty dollar. Furthermore, so is basic human decency and caring for our fellow man.

I believe one of the primary mandates of government is to care for the widowed, judge the fatherless, and minister to the poor. That mandate comes directly from God to the people elected to be in charge, and when it is forgotten and/or set aside, things slowly start to fall apart, again as I think we are witnessing now. FBO's are not going to take up the slack.



(President Bush speaking)

The entrepreneurial spirit is really strong here. The role of government is not to create wealth. The role of government is to create an environment in which the entrepreneur is willing to take risk and be able to get a return on the risk taken. And we need to keep the entrepreneurial spirit alive and well across this country.

link


The role of government is to encourage an entrepreneurial spirit?

What will the government do when it can no longer rob the Socilal Security Trust Fund to make up for its shortfalls in funding, as we are seeing now? Continue to raise the debt ceiling? Is that encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit? I don't think that is going to work, either.

What is more likely to happen is what we are seeing happening, pension funds gutted, social programs scrapped, and tens of millions of American citizens left without any sort of reasonable healthcare and retirement benefits, after paying for a lifetime into a system mandated to provide just that.



(President Bush speaking again)

Health care is an issue that we have got to confront, and the — the problem of unfunded liabilities when it comes to Social Security and Medicare, which is a long-term problem for our economy.

link


Unrestrained Capitalism leads to the survival of the richest at the expense of those they used to get that way. Its parasitic.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
In a historical view, Capitalism has never faced more challenges than it does today - the ideas of Socialism and Communism [et al] were destroyed. Falsely taught through the education system and the revolution Marxist's claimed would happen is likely it never will.


Neither Socialism, nor Communism are destroyed.... Marxists claimed that Communism would be ultimately accepted in countries like the United States through Socialism, and it has succeded as many Americans, and others around the world are accepting ideas and goals which were/are part of Communism... One of those delluded ideas and goals is to destroy Capitalism, or should I say supplant it?, which has always been the main goal of Communism.



Originally posted by Odium
So what is this new threat? It is the beast itself - Capitalism.


How ironic that you talk about "the destruction of Communism and Socialism" when you have taken the motto of Communism...


[edit on 3-8-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Lets face the simple fact:
Capitalism doesnt take our freedoms away
Communism doesn't take our freedoms away
Fascism doesn't take our freedoms away
No government takes our freedoms away.
WE GIVE our freedoms away.


This is true!




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join