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.

 

Capitalism and Communism: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




"The whole world is capitalist, there are NO countries where the economy is worker owned and controlled, NONE."

SO what? Get over it. You do know that this is only helping to prove the point here, right?

Call it Capitalism, or Communism...Are they two sides of the same coin? I think that was said already in the OP.

Is China more "capitalist" than communist? Probably. Again, so what?

Here's the thing to do, in order to get outside of these convenient label-boxes. Google up the "planks" of Communism. What actually did Marx say he wanted? Do we see these things today, in the UK, the USA, etc.? How many of these planks have come to pass? What percentage?

"If" only 70% had been implemented in a particular nation, when could we begin to call them "communist"? Would we really need 100% to earn that label? Was it always "only" about economics exclusively? Did it spill over in to how the populations were in fact governed?

I think it's interesting that you mention Spain. Are you perhaps a bit sympathetic to the "communist" cause? No worries! It's just the same "cause", with a different name!

Of course, it's not something people will automatically see, but can the reader accept that "workers" owning the means of production, or the land that could be harvested, can people see that such a thing was never really intended by anyone?

We need to get past the propaganda, that still lingers to this day! No, communism, created specifically to help destroy non-cooperative royal dynasties, was never intended to "empower" the masses".

As big New York money interests acknowledged, who helped finance the Russian revolution, their 20 million in gold was the best real estate deal EVER. To "buy" the biggest nation on earth for that? To put out of business the Russian royals, for such a paltry sum? What a deal!

In my younger days, I "met" Armand Hammer. Well, I was really too young at the time to really meet him, but my "best friend" became the ad hoc bar tender at a small Occidental Oil party held in San Clemente, Calif., because the "real" bar tender had not shown up. (Yes, Hammer was there to meet with the then recently former President, Nixon, later, so I was told.)

Even as a young man, it was pretty clear then, that there were people out there, who seemed to be "above" the generally held paradigm. Why was it that a guy like Hammer, could fly into Moscow, and have meetings with Soviet big-wigs, and it not be a problem? At a minimum, things were not as they seemed.

We need to get beyond the propaganda. Truth be told, I'm not sure even the Rothschild crime family was entirely aware of the sinister potential the modern transnational "corporation" might have, way back when they decided to harness it's incredible power, and unleash it on the world.

JR




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
No, neither capitalism nor communism traditionally provides special benefits to corporations. That is called "fascism." What you see practiced by so-called "communist" countries is not true communism.


Exactly!

When government and corporations run the economy it's fascism.

This in a nutshell is communism...

Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.

It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association.

Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.

In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.

www.marxists.org...

If it calls itself communist, but still allows private ownership of the means of production, then it is not what it claims to be. Those in power will use any method it sees fit to maintain control, and if they think by calling themselves communist they will be excepted better by the people then they will do it. Hitler did the same by using National 'Socialism', to make the people think the party was for the people. It's not what they called themselves it's what they did that matters.

All of this is about divide and rule, the capitalists have their one world system, and they pit countries against countries in order to keep us from realizing who the real enemy is, and realizing that there really is no difference between countries economies and political systems (private ownership of the means of production, worker labour exploitation). During the early 1900's the worlds workers were becoming very organized and powerful. The Industrial Workers of the World was formed in Chicago 1905 to help bring the world working classes together and organized. This accumulated with the Spanish revolution, where people came from all over the world to help create a socialist worker controlled system.

To keep this from happening again after WWII we had the 'cold war' and all the other BS since to keep the worlds workers from organizing.

It really has been Class War since the industrial revolution. The part of our history not taught in state schools.

[edit on 9/5/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
SO what? Get over it. You do know that this is only helping to prove the point here, right?


LOL no it's not proving your point.

It's proving you are confusing terms, and trying to claim things based on your misinterpretations.

Get over it?



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
SO what? Get over it. You do know that this is only helping to prove the point here, right?


LOL no it's not proving your point.

It's proving you are confusing terms, and trying to claim things based on your misinterpretations.

Get over it?


Sorry, don't take it that way. The reason why terms are confusing is not because I prefer it that way, but because our masters do.

All these "isms"...What is a person to do?

Forget them. Leave them where they are, let the definitions stack up, who cares?

The reality is that there is a conspiracy to "take over the world"! Oh yes, it sounds over-the-top, but what if it was true?

Long ago, Machiavelli advised his Prince about what it might take, to gain real power. Can we imagine that five centuries later, at this late date, someone, somewhere, wouldn't have figured it out? Pahleeze.

IS THERE A CONSPIRACY, OR NOT?

Too many want to continue looking at the world mostly as they were originally told. TAKE THE RED PILL. It may not be as you would imagine.

Consolidation of power....How would this look? Could we perhaps convince the sheeple that they were finally getting justice, that they would finally get the fruits of their labor, that finally, they might enjoy a "fair" world?

That's "communism"! Pure bunk, for fools. The reality? Read up on the ruthless Rothschild clan. They could give a darn about our "terms", all they want is total control of the planet.

OK, and so now introduce "Fascism"...

Is this not theirs too? Perhaps Hitler was not really yet another illegitimate, of the Rothschild beasts? Perhaps the US Bush crime family has nothing to do with these animals?

Where do corporations fit in? These are legal entities that can live...FOREVER!!

Go ahead, pick an "ism", confuse the "terms" as you say, and let me ask, where are you going with it all?

JR



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Sorry, don't take it that way. The reason why terms are confusing is not because I prefer it that way, but because our masters do.

All these "isms"...What is a person to do?


How about learn what they actually mean, not what the media and other people with agendas have added to the meanings?


Forget them. Leave them where they are, let the definitions stack up, who cares?


Who cares? Well I do for one, if you are going to make claims about a particular economic system based on misinformation you are not helping anyone. You are just adding to the confusion, it's not the 'masters' it's you that is confusing yourself based on a mishmash of 'isms' you've thrown together and expect to make sense.


The reality is that there is a conspiracy to "take over the world"! Oh yes, it sounds over-the-top, but what if it was true?


Take over the world? What does that means exactly? The world has been 'taken over' many many times in history.


Long ago, Machiavelli advised his Prince about what it might take, to gain real power. Can we imagine that five centuries later, at this late date, someone, somewhere, wouldn't have figured it out? Pahleeze.


I can't disagree, cause I don't know, but I don't see what this has to do with communism?
These royals you speak of are the ruling class, otherwise known as the capitalist class (not communists in disguise lol). They figured out a long time ago how to gain real power, own the means of production.


IS THERE A CONSPIRACY, OR NOT?


Yes there are lots of conspiracies, but I fail to understand what conspiracy you are talking about? Is there a conspiracy by capitalists to control as much of the worlds economy as possible, if course there is. It is the nature of capitalism to gain as much as possible for least amount of people, if it was allowed to reach its ultimate goal one person would own everything.


Too many want to continue looking at the world mostly as they were originally told. TAKE THE RED PILL. It may not be as you would imagine.


Most people don't even understand what capitalism or communism is. What you have been told is lies or incomplete, not sure which, but you are all very confused as to what 'isms' are. To the point you all seem to just throw up your hands and so 'get over it' or 'so what' or other stupid comments.


That's "communism"! Pure bunk, for fools. The reality? Read up on the ruthless Rothschild clan. They could give a darn about our "terms", all they want is total control of the planet.


LOL the Rothchilds are capitalists, in fact the perfect example of. Private owners of the means of production. Are you equating communism with controlling the world or something? As I've shown that is not communism. That's just capitalism, and they already control the worlds economy, so they already control the world.


OK, and so now introduce "Fascism"...

Is this not theirs too? Perhaps Hitler was not really yet another illegitimate, of the Rothschild beasts? Perhaps the US Bush crime family has nothing to do with these animals?


I'm having a hard time following you, I can't keep trying to guess what assumptions you are making.



Go ahead, pick an "ism", confuse the "terms" as you say, and let me ask, where are you going with it all?


Huh? I'm just trying to figure out what you are trying to say with your mishmash of ideas.

learn what the isms actually are, and then once you're ready to except what they actually are (not the state propagandized versions), maybe you would make more sense.

I know a lot of your thinking comes from this 'capitalism is freedom' BS that America is conditioned to believe. That capitalism is 'free-markets', and right wing means smaller government. It's not true, it's just the same kind of lies fed to the people of Germany, and other countries, to convince them to allow their own freedoms to be taken away in the name of capitalism (private ownership of the means of production). You allow your own exploitation by not realising who the real enemy of freedom is, 'the private ownership of the means of production', that keeps us all selling our labour and supporting the capitalist class.

The working class new this before WWII, and were trying to do something about it. After WWII the propaganda machine went into full power and the consumer society was created, which has kept the people passified, more or less, to this day. Moderate fascism. The rich poor divide has continuously got wider, showing which side capitalism really benefits. According to the United Nations 1% owns 40% of the worlds assets.

www.seattlepi.com...

It's really not that complicated when you see the big picture and know the history of the working classes since the industrial revolution.

So to sum up, no capitalism and communism are not two sides of the same coin. They are polar opposites by definition.

[edit on 9/6/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Sorry, don't take it that way. The reason why terms are confusing is not because I prefer it that way, but because our masters do.

How about learn what they actually mean, not what the media and other people with agendas have added to the meanings?


How about deal with reality? ...The fact is, word meaning change - and what counts in the end is "popular perception."



Forget them. ...let the definitions stack up, who cares?


...if you are going to make claims about a particular economic system based on misinformation you are not helping anyone. You are just adding to the confusion, ...




Linguistics: the systematic study of the structure and development of language ...



I am confident that JR Macbeth knows full well, as do I, exactly what communism was supposed to mean, as described by Nathan Mayer Rothschild's great-grand-son Karl Marx.

The fact is, the word's meaning has been changed - in practice and perhaps most importantly, popular perception.

It is this modified, current meaning that is being addressed here.

And btw - as much as "communism" has been perverted and polluted, so too has the pure concept of the "free market," not to mention "democracy."




...capitalism and communism are not two sides of the same coin. They are polar opposites by definition.


We get that they are polar opposites according to the original definition of communism; we're saying that they're the same in practice and in effect - and trying to address the phenomenon in the context of popular perception.

IMHO - it's more valuable for people to recognize that we've ALL bought the same pig in a poke than it is to review, yet again, the fundamentals of "ism" economics.

The questions I'm trying to address are:

1. What actually happened here?
[My hypothesis:
* The "Royals" were replaced with corporations as fronts for the real ruling class; and
* A legal foundation created to ensure that institutionalized corporations would live forever, independent of any front-puppet ruling class "Royal" bloodline.


2. How did it happen?
My hypothesis:
* Democracy was re-defined as capitalism;
* The "free" market was controlled but promoted falsely as "free";
* Communism too was perverted from its original intent;
* Every "new" form of government was appropriated and twisted to serve the real ruling class sitting behind the thrones, and to ensure that said real-ruling-class-behind-the-thrones would hold power in perpetuity, unthreatened by the inevitable negative impacts of royal inbreeding;
* The strategy uses national corporate law and international trade law to supersede nations' sovereignty, and make global corporate government unavoidable.



You're quite right of course - Communism in practice is NOT the economic system described by Nathan Mayer Rothschild's great-grand-son Karl Marx.

In addition - the "free" market is NOT free; democracy was NOT originally meant to be synonymous with capitalism; America's Founding Fathers did NOT intend to allow any corporation the power to monopolize any industry - never mind the nation or global economy.

But that's exactly what happened. And that's what we're addressing here.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




learn what the isms actually are, and then once you're ready to except what they actually are (not the state propagandized versions), maybe you would make more sense.

I know a lot of your thinking comes from this 'capitalism is freedom' BS that America is conditioned to believe. That capitalism is 'free-markets', and right wing means smaller government. It's not true, it's just the same kind of lies fed to the people of Germany, and other countries, to convince them to allow their own freedoms to be taken away in the name of capitalism (private ownership of the means of production). You allow your own exploitation by not realising who the real enemy of freedom is, 'the private ownership of the means of production', that keeps us all selling our labour and supporting the capitalist class.

...It's really not that complicated when you see the big picture and know the history of the working classes since the industrial revolution.

So to sum up, no capitalism and communism are not two sides of the same coin. They are polar opposites by definition.


The emphasis above is mine, but I think you have tipped your hand at this point. You are indeed a believer, and your own words tell the story.

The "real enemy of freedom"?? Well my friend, I have another one for you:

Freedom is Slavery

I'm afraid that your dictionary will be of little use here. You can certainly look up these words, and conclude that the equation is "stupid", etc. But the answer to the riddle in this case is to be found in the book.

Seriously. Read Orwell's 1984, and maybe Animal Farm too while you're at it. When you're done, I hope you'll be able to extrapolate a bit, and see that Orwell was not just talking about a future dystopia, he was commenting on the developments of his day, and imagining what things could one day devolve into. The punch line is that many of us believe that he was right, and that we are "here", in many ways.

Your comment about "capitalism is freedom BS", well, I don't think I said any such thing, nor do I see soficrow saying anything like it.

I think what happens with people who believe so strongly in systems, is that they naturally tend more to think in terms of black and white. If for example, they read something that seems to "attack" their system, or belief, then the perceived offender is automatically handed a black hat to wear, and off they go.

Let's take off these hats! I will not speak for others, but I am certainly not an advocate of unbridled capitalism, and my comments about corporations would be hard to interpret otherwise (I think). Of course, just because I reject communism as well, shouldn't make me the enemy, should it?

But wait a minute ANOK! You have already graciously identified the enemy for us:



the real enemy of freedom is, 'the private ownership of the means of production'


I have a feeling that you are going to have "conditioned Americans", old Maggie Thatcherites, as well as other black-hat folk showing up here any minute, to take you to task on that one. Although there are plenty of communists out there too.

But rather than get into who the "real enemy" might be (because the thread really should stay on track I think), let me share with you, shades of my own hat color.

I own "means of production". I have been self-employed for decades. I will confess that I have had employees too. Some might accuse me of living in a house that is "too big", etc. Am I "the enemy"? If so, why exactly?

I produce. I do not ask for government support. I employ others, who enjoy being able to support their families. I believe that I play a useful role in the economy. My clients generally have more money, and so when they give some to me, am I better, or worse, than Wal-Mart, for example, since they take from poor people, and buy goods from China?

Really, we don't need to get into this, but I'm hoping that I'm making my point. I'll go one more, specifically treating of a concept you may find repugnant, that is, private ownership. Let's call this one...

The Park Bench

You walk up to a park bench. The slob sitting there is about to shove off, but you're pretty sure that it's his messy lunch left-overs to his side. Rather than have a confrontation, you decide you can sit on the other half of the bench anyway. Frankly, if that other bench was in better repair, you might have sat over there instead, but alas, these are park benches we're talking about.

You haven't sat there long, when you notice a few dirty looks. Your first thought is that they are thinking the mess is now your doing! But then you recall that you were chewing gum when you sat down, maybe this guy saw you stick your old gum on the bottom of the bench seat? Oh, whatever! You decide to leave, and are careful to get up, since you wouldn't want a splinter in your behind.

As you leave, a young couple takes your place. Ah, l'amour! You see the young man pull out a small blade, and begin carving. A heart-shape no doubt, with initials in the middle...

Later that night, no one is looking! A couple of kids have a can of spray paint, and have found the bench. They are probably just artists...

In the morning, your park bench is beginning to look more like the other one now, that no one wants to sit on anymore.

SO NOW, let me ask, if this was your neighbor's bench, would you treat it this way? If it belonged to you, how would you feel, if others behaved this way with your property?

I'm not really sure if you're personally radical enough to be against private ownership, as a principle, but for those who imagine it's a good idea, I might ask that they consider the humble park bench. Why does it look that way? Because it's "owned" by everyone, which is essentially the same as being owned by no one. Small wonder it is accorded so little respect.

What would the elimination of private ownership look like?

Remember the Park Bench, and we will have our answer.

JR



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
reply to post by ANOK
 


Your comment about "capitalism is freedom BS", well, I don't think I said any such thing, nor do I see soficrow saying anything like it.

I think what happens with people who believe so strongly in systems, is that they naturally tend more to think in terms of black and white. If for example, they read something that seems to "attack" their system, or belief, then the perceived offender is automatically handed a black hat to wear, and off they go.

Let's take off these hats! I will not speak for others, but I am certainly not an advocate of unbridled capitalism, and my comments about corporations would be hard to interpret otherwise (I think). Of course, just because I reject communism as well, shouldn't make me the enemy, should it?



Another great post. Thanks.

And me? I just don't like big unwieldy institutions - not huge bureaucracies; not unbridled capitalism backed by the WTO, World Bank, etc; not communism; not churches. The list goes on...

Oh yeah - and certainly not megalithic global corporations.






[edit on 6-9-2010 by soficrow]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
How about deal with reality? ...The fact is, word meaning change - and what counts in the end is "popular perception."


No they do not change, show me where the definitions have been re-written.

I have shown you recent articles for support.

The definitions have only changed in their common usage, common usage can not be used for a serious discussion, you have to use the original base definition otherwise no one will know that you're talking about.

It's ridiculous to think you can ignore the true definition of terms to fit some idea you have. It doesn't work that way because in reality the system doesn't work by the common usage of the terms, you need know what they actually mean to make any sense of it all.

I mean to say America is a communist country masquerading as capitalism is ridiculous and shows an obvious misunderstanding of both capitalism and socialism.

Capitalism is capitalism, socialism is socialism, communism is communism, as they have always been. If a country calls itself communist but is actually capitalist it doesn't mean the term communism has changed, it means the country is not communist.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by soficrow
How about deal with reality? ...The fact is, word meaning change - and what counts in the end is "popular perception."


The definitions have only changed in their common usage,




True.

And common usage defines "popular perception" and thereby, determines popular support.

Which is what we're trying to address.





...common usage can not be used for a serious discussion,




Unless of course, one is discussing matters with actual common people, in which case it is mandatory - not to mention, often quite revealing.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
True.

And common usage defines "popular perception" and thereby, determines popular support.

Which is what we're trying to address.


Why, when common use of the terms is wrong? By calling something communism when it isn't communism is stupid and allows you to be exploited due to ignorance.



Unless of course, one is discussing matters with actual common people, in which case it is mandatory - not to mention, often quite revealing.


But it gets us nowhere when one person thinks communism is more government and capitalism is freedom, and those of us who know better see it completely different.

It's absurd to me to try to discuss economics or politics using definitions of terms that are not true.

Common usage terms has nothing to do with common people, it has to do with the state purposefully confusing the masses in order to hide what they really are.

We have to have a common ground, if I discuss communism from it's true original meaning and you use an incorrect definition then we are not going to get anywhere.

Common usage of terms are not definitions of that term and people from different places use different common usages. So to make sure we're all on the same page we need to use the correct original definition.

If you do that then you will realize for example that nether Russia nor China were communists and using them as examples of is wrong. They're only communist by name not action, and the western state system uses that confusion to keep you from realizing that as people we are all the same and the differences are superficial. It's all about keeping the working class from organizing like they did prior to WWII.

Divide and rule.

[edit on 9/7/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Do you agree that what is called "communism," as practiced in Russia and China, is much like what is called "capitalism" and practiced in other nations?

Thanks,
sofi



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by ANOK
 


Do you agree that what is called "communism," as practiced in Russia and China, is much like what is called "capitalism" and practiced in other nations?


Yes because it isn't communism, it is capitalism, the same as what is practiced in all other nations.

That is why I have a problem with people using the term communism when it isn't communism, just because they call it communism. Not everyone thinks of Russia etc., when you say communism.

When people say things like 'America is communism masquerading as capitalism', it makes no sense to me. If you think that because America is getting like Russia it's becoming communist then you are wrong from the get go because Russia was NOT communist. It might be getting like Russia but it's not got anything to do with communism. Capitalism can come in many guises, as long as the means of production are privately owned it doesn't matter what the culture, or infrastructure, or even the government is like.

People use the term capitalism to mean more than what it does. You could have a dictator, or Anarchism, and still have private ownership of the means of production, capitalism. It really has nothing to do with free-markets, or any of that, even if it is included in many definitions. The main definition that matters is the 'private ownership of the means of production', as long as that is a truth, regardless of anything else, it IS capitalism. Capitalism allows 'free markets' and so can socialism in theory, even though it generally makes them obsolete.



edit on 9/8/2010 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Capitalism and Communism: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

...and as always, the real questions are,

1. Who props up and under-writes our ruling royalty-cum-corporations?

2. Who do our ruling royalty-cum-corporations front for?

3. Who's really pulling our strings?



Good questions. Ones that I don't think were addressed adequately here.

But first regarding the majority of the thread discussion, I will say that no, no one should believe for a moment that what "communist" China has going on is anything even remotely like what Marx outlined in the Manifesto. China is facist which is far from what "pure" communism would be.

But like most big things, "real" communism (the evil, made up one), is an engineered conspiracy along with the capitalist conspiracy. Communism being a creation of capitalism, or more accurately capitalists.

I can't imagine anything addressing this topic more precisely then G. Edward Griffin's film "The Capitalist Conspiracy".

It can be viewed on Google video, is under an hour long and has a lot of info that everyone should understand, packed into it.

Two sides of the same coin indeed. I'd be eager to discuss any points about it made in that film.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by StrangeBrew
 


Thanks StrangeBrew. I will check it out.

...At the moment, I'm mulling over an astounding expose I just read that is helping me sort through a lot of contradictions that haven't been making sense...

Covert Operations

The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.”


The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.


Let me know what you think, please.





edit on 8-9-2010 by soficrow because: fix format



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Sure, I'll give you my opinion anytime. What were the contradictions you were talking about? Do the Kochs' practices and involvements answer some questions?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by StrangeBrew
 


What hasn't made sense to me: the new definition/equation of Libertarianism = Corporatocracy. Not true, imo. ...the article clarifies that Koch has been funding 'think tanks,' policy 'institutes' and 'grass-roots' movements for decades to promote his agenda - corporatocracy.

He's smart, filthy rich, motivated - and successful. ...he's definitely a brilliant mastermind - knows how to repackage his ideas for different markets and still hold the reins...



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
There is only the haves and the have nots.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Yes, I know what you mean by the definition of libertarian. It doesn't seem like that should be able to mean that you can strive for deregulation so that your industrious efforts can poison the environment for massive profits. But as they would have it, you're "liberal" or "free" to do as you wish apparently.

They are modern day industrialists using the capitalist schema perfectly to their advantage.

But still, on the capitalist/communist conspiracy scale, they wouldn't even register on the meter.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




...calling something communism when it isn't communism is stupid and allows you to be exploited due to ignorance...

It's absurd to me to try to discuss economics or politics using definitions of terms that are not true.


I haven't given up on you ANOK. Since you are a self-proclaimed communist, it probably is bothersome to say the least, when we look out upon a "communist" world, that prefers to hide behind other names.

It's especially frustrating if you feel like it should be otherwise. You have made it clear that you think that all nations are "capitalist" today, regardless of popular impressions. I'm not sure there is exactly total disagreement here, although you seem to have taken it that way.

This business of trying to connect things that are in separate boxes, things that have ever been categorized differently, is not going to be easy for everyone. It's one of the reasons why I think this is a great thread, because it might get people to get out of their boxes, and consider other possibilities.

My suggestion earlier was to look up the planks of Communism. Maybe you didn't get time to do so. Here they are:

Ten Planks of Communism: Already Here in America

You said:

...calling something communism when it isn't communism is stupid



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join