Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by ANOK

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism Noam Chomsky

No offence, but Noam Chomsky is an English teacher.

A PhD in English teaching but none the less no more educated to discuss economic matters than, well, an English teacher.

Adam Smith and even Friedman are much more fertile grounds on how to make an economic system work. Not a fairer system, merely one that works.

lol

He is a highly skilled linguistic scholar, a revolutionary in the field. That is very different from being an English teacher.
Next to that he is a political activists, who has studied the subject more then you could probably conceive.

Chomsky is by far the most important leading intellectual in this world. A true freedom fighter.

Originally posted by ollncasino
No offence, but Noam Chomsky is an English teacher.

No, he is a linguist professor. But so what, the man has a brain, and I know from my own research and experience that he is right. I was a Lib-Soc long before I ever heard of the man.

What degree do you have in order to be qualified to tell me he's wrong? What makes you any more knowledgeable than him, or me? My degrees are in engineering and mechanics, but it never stopped me being able to research and understand the history of class struggle since the industrial revolution.

Adam Smith and even Friedman are much more fertile grounds on how to make an economic system work. Not a fairer system, merely one that works.

I disagree.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

Stop comparing Norway, it is not socialist. It has a mixture of private ownership, capitalism, and state ownership, nationalism.

Government ownership is nationalism, not socialism.

Socialism is the workers ownership, of the means of production. Even in state-socialism the workers own the means of production. Government just takes care of the infrastructure, like it is supposed to.

The Norwegian economy is generally characterized as a mixed economy - a capitalist market economy with a clear component of state influence.

www.norway.org...

No state or government required for socialism...

flag.blackened.net...

Fascism is actually spun out of the same leftist cloth that socialism is, but aside from that, communism is the centrally planned, state owned means of production and socialism is an intermediary step between capitalism and communism.

Therefore, what Obama is doing is fabian socialism, gradually nationalizing private industry(health, auto, finance), throwing taxpayer money at already nationalized foreign industry(Brazilian Petrobas), and also privatizing some national debt, redistributing wealth, threatening to not make payouts to SS to scare the seniors and the conservative Congress, making back room deals with the Unions(another aspect of communism) and in general engaging in cronyism and Chicago style politics, all while snubbing entire segments of American citizens. That is not all of course but it's all been incredibly destructive to the point where sensible, knowledgeable people see the handwriting on the wall.

reply to post by maestromason
Wow how many times do you talk about self and never once mention the society you live in.

It is undeniable that some are more driven and that they should prosper from hard work but not at the cost to everyone else.

Can you tell me how a master plasterer or master bricklayer can ply his trade without a labourer?

Do you believe that the hard working miners, steel workers and dock workers had any say when due to a political ideal they were made unemployed? Do you believe as your post suggests that everyone on the dole is there by choice?

It seems to me you need to look over the horizon as you are not the centre of everything.

Originally posted by ANOK

Outsourcing illustrates the laws of capitalist exploitation

I agree with you.

Modern outsourcing (globalisation) is not greater wealth for all. It is merely wage arbitration - capitalists searching the lowest cost labour around the world.

The fact that the media parrots the mantra that globalisation is a good thing (while Western workers lose jobs to Indians and Chinese workers) tends to prove how controlled by big money the media really is.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

Stop comparing Norway, it is not socialist. It has a mixture of private ownership, capitalism, and state ownership, nationalism.

Government ownership is nationalism, not socialism.

Socialism is the workers ownership, of the means of production. Even in state-socialism the workers own the means of production. Government just takes care of the infrastructure, like it is supposed to.

The Norwegian economy is generally characterized as a mixed economy - a capitalist market economy with a clear component of state influence.

www.norway.org...

No state or government required for socialism...

flag.blackened.net...

Explain to me why, exactly, the workers should own the means of production.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ollncasino
No offence, but Noam Chomsky is an English teacher.

I disagree.

Adam Smith is the father of economics. Freidman's ideas has proved successful in raising millions out of poverty in Chile.

Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics.

Don't get me wrong, maybe Chomsky is correct. But if he is, it isn't because he has a better grasp of how economic systems work. Far from it.

If I claimed that Smith and Friedman could teach Chomsky a thing or too about linguistics, well people would kill themselves laughing.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Haha! Good one. Just add 5 more full pints for the Gov't in the Capitalist Graphic and it's about right.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Fascism is actually spun out of the same leftist cloth that socialism is, but aside from that, communism is the centrally planned, state owned means of production and socialism is an intermediary step between capitalism and communism.

No it isn't.

Fascism is the system of authoritative control by government, corporations, and military. It supports private ownership, capitalism.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less. There are varied ways to implement it from Marxism to anarchism.

The whole reason the socialist revolution started in Spain is because of the military coup by the fascist dictator Franco, with help from Hitler and Mussolini. Fascism was created by Mussolini.

Socialism is the stepping stone to communism in Marxism. Marxism is not the only way to implement socialism.

'Anarchism is stateless socialism' Mikhail Bakunin.

The nature of economics & government really devolves into an argument about the nature of man... Think Plato's Republic, or the argument between Hobbe's and Locke. Is man able to rule himself or does he require a king to tell him what to do?

The Founding Fathers of the United States wrestled with the answer to this question and came up with a system that was in no way perfect, but it walked a tightrope between "enough" central control (enumerated powers and all) and freedom to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness. Of course, your mileage may vary regarding the results.

While I don't jump on the bandwagon that the United States began as an outright Christian nation as we understand it - I do contend that the moral compass of the time was pointed toward a society where a certain level of virtue was expected. It is impossible for either a purely democratic or republican form of government to actually govern in a society where this moral condition does not exist.

Since our founding political and economic philosophies were so intertwined, it stands to reason that the same lack of virtue makes a "free market" economy unfeasible. There are not enough checks and balances that can be put in place to "regulate" systemic greed and crony capitalism.

Although the following video has made the rounds, it is instructive even though it is "theoretical".

Originally posted by petrus4
Unfortunately, out in the real world, something different is happening. People who have great educations are ending up living in tents, and are losing their homes irrespective of how hard they've worked. Your theory doesn't account for that; and truthfully it can't.

There are so many possible responses to this... A short post wouldn't even come close to doing it justice though.

Suffice it to say that you should look to your illustrious leaders who have been dismantling the manufacturing base of the United States since the early 70's if you want to lay blame. Since then, it has been a non-stop erosion of this country's ability to produce anything of intrinsic value regardless of education level. AND just because someone has a PhD in Basket Weaving doesn't mean they produce anything of value if nobody wants to buy baskets... It is a tremendous waste of resources (which like it or not are scarce) to pursue this industry above and beyond society's demand for the product. When government steps in (as in the too big to fail bailouts) it enables and perpetuates this waste. But I digress... A simple review of basic economics actually deals with this question quite nicely.

Simply put, they're no longer economically relevant no matter how much education they have. Markets are a bitch.

The second point, which is even more damning, is the fact that even hypothetically, your theory here only looks good as far as the industrialised world is concerned. For the other 85% or so of the planet, there isn't even a pretense that things work that way.

Hmmm... Your assertion lacks merit. Markets, which form the backbone of capitalism, spring up spontaneously in every society regardless of the controlling governmental entity type. There is always the age old problem of trading value for value and people either officially or unofficially solve this through a basic economic supply and demand scenario. There hasn't EVER been a centrally planned, socialist government OR quasi-democratic socialist government that has worked. The base laws of macro/micro economics ALWAYS come into play. There are NO exceptions.

You're probably absolutely correct about the socialist division of wealth under a pathocratic (psychopathic) government; but my own philosophy is including the idea that we can learn to identify psychopaths, and if we can learn to identify them, then we can also learn to make sure that they don't get into positions of political power.

Wow! You're walking dangerous ground on this one... Just how do you propose to pre-identify said psychopaths? I can just see it now - Sorry sir/madam but we will have to disallow you from certain privileges just because we THINK you will become a raging psychopath... The collective consciousness knows all and has deemed you deficient...

reply to post by ANOK


Fascism is still a leftist ideology. Hitler's version was as he called it, "National Socialism" ( as opposed to the Soros style International Socialism), and both Hitler's style and Mussolini's style was Totalitarian. Socialism or the Nanny State is also Totalitarian, but it happens to be moving in increments in many nations. Fascism does tend to employ the Police State to enforce its Totalitarian policy. Socialism, fascism, and Communism are all Authoritarian.
George Soros is a good example of a socialist who makes money in the private sector and uses his wealth to manipulate and control the markets and develop and support radical leftist organizations.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ollncasino
No offence, but Noam Chomsky is an English teacher.

No, he is a linguist professor. But so what, the man has a brain, and I know from my own research and experience that he is right. I was a Lib-Soc long before I ever heard of the man.

What degree do you have in order to be qualified to tell me he's wrong? What makes you any more knowledgeable than him, or me? My degrees are in engineering and mechanics, but it never stopped me being able to research and understand the history of class struggle since the industrial revolution.

Adam Smith and even Friedman are much more fertile grounds on how to make an economic system work. Not a fairer system, merely one that works.

I disagree.

edit on 2/2/2012 by ANOK because: typo

My god look at the total mess in this topic. How has it come this far, words have totally lost their original meaning. This is disastrous.

I am wondering. If the cold war era, since it's clear that the Bolsheviks were financed from Wall Street who continued to supply and fund the Sovjets, gave them the bomb etc. was perhaps a propaganda campaign to destroy true socialism. Spain proved that it could work, the absolute nightmare of any ruling elite. So they stole the socialist identity, turned Russia into the Sovjet Union and led the world believe that that was what socialism entailed.

Originally posted by mastahunta
I am against unbridled capitalism myself... I don't think free markets
work in large markets that take insane amounts of money to compete in.
You have 50 private people running and controlling all three competitors...
Its a farce and an excuse to wage economic war on the rest of us.

A = 1
B = 1
C = 1

thats not competition, thats horse sheet

edit on 2-2-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

ron paul has a vision about real capitalism and libertarianism.
in that model, the golden rule would work. people would naturally do the right thing personally and in business or government because they would worry about the consequences

our system is rigged though...media lies, fda lies, companies brainwash people with marketing and ads, i mean the amount of LYING is do DEEP in this world ---that it must be totally changed for real free enterprise and capitalism to matter again

what we have is corporatacry, and evil inclined version of capitalism today

I'm sorry to say it but its true

not 1 homeowner has been compensated for the out right fraud of 1000s of people atop the global banking empire

not 1 banker in jail

and this is just one industry. these guys own every industry and their lies are permeating throughout for 1 reason: profit and domination to control events

until this changes no real hope is there i don't care if romney or paul gets in

Originally posted by ollncasino
Adam Smith is the father of economics.

Only in your dreams.

Don't get me wrong, maybe Chomsky is correct. But if he is, it isn't because he has a better grasp of how economic systems work. Far from it.

If I claimed that Smith and Friedman could teach Chomsky a thing or too about linguistics, well people would kill themselves laughing.

I disagree.

Adam Smith was a socialist...

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves well fed, clothed, and lodged." Adam Smith.

"Smith saw the task of political economy as the pursuit of "two distinct objects": "first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and second, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services". He defended such public services as free education and poverty relief, while demanding greater freedom for the indigent who receives support than the rather punitive Poor Laws of his day permitted. Beyond his attention to the components and responsibilities of a well-functioning market system (such as the role of accountability and trust), he was deeply concerned about the inequality and poverty that might remain in an otherwise successful market economy. Even in dealing with regulations that restrain the markets, Smith additionally acknowledged the importance of interventions on behalf of the poor and the underdogs of society. At one stage, he gives a formula of disarming simplicity: "When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters." Smith was both a proponent of a plural institutional structure and a champion of social values that transcend the profit motive, in principle as well as in actual reach." Adam Smith

The term socialism was just simply not in use yet. If he has been alive in the 1850's he would have been a socialist. The term capitalism hadn't even been created yet.

It seems to me all American ideas of politics and economics comes from biased out of context misunderstandings.

Capitalism is not markets. Socialism, and capitalism, are who controls the means to produce for the market.

Originally posted by ANOK
My degrees are in engineering and mechanics, but it never stopped me being able to research and understand the history of class struggle since the industrial revolution.

But how well can you design an economic system that works?

While I respect your degrees in engineering and mechanics (and I really do), it doesn't qualify you to design an economic system anymore than I am qualified to design a bridge.

some people are comfy and locked in place in their current system... of course they dont want to change


some people are not comfy and locked in their current system.... of course they want it to change


is there a way to change the system so that everyone is comfy., and together everyone can work and progress from there...

still own property paid for by your energy spent working... still can build a boat for yourself using energy spent from working...

work on life priorities first... and then the 99c toy factories can open again... even though now it is factories like those that contribute to economic growth...

reply to post by ANOK

Adam Smith was a socialist...

Oh for crying out loud. Why do you socialist types keep trying to sell the idea that Adam Smith was a socialist, that Milton Friedman was a socialist, that the Founding Fathers were all socialists, and that Jesus was socialist?

Originally posted by ANOK
Adam Smith was a socialist...

Even in dealing with regulations that restrain the markets, Smith additionally acknowledged the importance of interventions on behalf of the poor and the underdogs of society.

So do I. But how do we make it work?

Socialism as practised in the USSR didn't work very well. Socialism as practised in China worked very badly.

Capitalism as practised in the USA fails to protect the poor and under dogs.

But how can we make it work?

I respectfully disagree that socialism has proven itself to be successful.

Originally posted by dadgad
I am wondering. If the cold war era, since it's clear that the Bolsheviks were financed from Wall Street who continued to supply and fund the Sovjets, gave them the bomb etc. was perhaps a propaganda campaign to destroy true socialism. Spain proved that it could work, the absolute nightmare of any ruling elite. So they stole the socialist identity, turned Russia into the Sovjet Union and led the world believe that that was what socialism entailed

That is exactly what happened.

Spain scared the hell out of the establishment.

Many left wing terms were appropriated, or demonized, by the state in order to confuse, or gain support from the people.

Libertarian is a good example of that in more modern times...

As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

150 years of Libertarian