Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

Originally posted by mastahunta

and the Nazi Party, that touted ideas of nationalism, national pride, anti Gay, anti liberal,
anti immigration, anti union, even pro gun

Do any of those positions sound liberal to you?

The first thing Hitler did was strip unions of their power, yet Communists and leftist believed
that unions were very important to their ideals.

I mean do you have any respect for honest debate?

LOL, so communists, and socialists have no national pride?...

Being gay in a communist country will not only increase your chances of harrassment, but very possibly imprisonment...

You are so ignorant, as the rest of your leftwinger friends, that you can't see the difference between light and darkness...

Gun control?... Hitler didn't want the "subject races" from owning any firearms, hence they created the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 ...

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...

Anti-Immigration?... People can be socialists/communists and be anti-immigration... Being anti-immigration does not prove being rightwing...

As I have already proven, socialists/communists can be against other socialists/communists...

As for anti-labor...

How about the Stalinist Laws to Tighten "Labor Discipline," 1938-1940?... Or the Soviet trade union debate of 1920-1921 in which Trotsky wanted to shaken up the unions and make them militaristic, and this brought howls of protests from the unions?...


Again, you fail to make an intelligent or concise argument...

Here is the real definition of a 'capitalist'.

Capitalist, one who practices capitalism.

Can anyone find me a a pure capitalist? I didn't think so. Can anyone find me a pure Christian or Muslim? yeah, really hard to find anything pure in the world these days. Even ground water is contaminated... zheeeesh.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

capitalism simply put is an economic system that uses capital (aka money) as the basis of trade. not barter, or state sponsored trade.
most of the time it is also synonyms with free trade and movement of goods (in practice only partially because of state terror and protectionism).
fee trade is where the action is at. you do not want a top down economy, trust me.
it is very convenient. there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

reply to post by BBalazs


You wrote

capitalism simply put is an economic system that uses capital (aka money) as the basis of trade.

I must disagree. Capital is not money. Abe Lincoln told me that labor is superior to capital.

Real Economics is about effective resource management, it is not about financial banksterism.

If our global economic system has been effected by a tumor we must extract that tumor. That is why I support a purge of the bankers. Our global economy should not be run on profit motives it should be run on motives of human dignity and respect.

Many bankers will die. Probably because they will kill themselves. The world will be a better place.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


yes, yes. you are correct.
but you need a form of measurement to measure, hence money.
otherwise you are doing the ridiculous.

the bankers are not the tumor, they are the symptom.
the disease runs deeper.
back to plato.
back to fallacy of thinking and thinking id dualities.
such as this thread.

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

capitalism simply put is an economic system that uses capital (aka money) as the basis of trade. not barter, or state sponsored trade.
most of the time it is also synonyms with free trade and movement of goods (in practice only partially because of state terror and protectionism).
fee trade is where the action is at. you do not want a top down economy, trust me.
it is very convenient. there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Nope, socialists define capital to denote the sum of value, or stored-up labour owned by capitalists, enabling them to appropriate surplus value through the exploitation of labour. The ownership of capital is the source of the capitalists' power and the foundation of capitalism. (from the 'Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism' by Jozef Wilczynski Ph.D. (London), D.Sc. (New South Wales) pg. 58.)

Socialism can also use money. You are confusing markets with whom owns the means to produce for that market.

Originally posted by ANOK

Nope, socialists define capital to denote the sum of value, or stored-up labour owned by capitalists, enabling them to appropriate surplus value through the exploitation of labour. (from the 'Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism' by Jozef Wilczynski pg. 58.)

Socialism can also use money. You are confusing markets with whom owned the means to produce for that market.

You want to talk about "exploitation of labor"?...

You will find that in EVERY socialist/communist nation despite your CLAIMS to the contrary...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

You want to talk about "exploitation of labor"?...

You will find that in EVERY socialist/communist nation despite your CLAIMS to the contrary...

Why do you keep making these ridiculous claims, that I, and others, have already addressed numerous times in this thread?

Again there have been no socialist/communist countries, period. Please stop associating what we are talking about with so called despot dictatorships. It's crap and annoying and not helping anything. It just shows you haven't researched the subject and just believe the party line. You're worse than a Russian 'communist'. You are trying to stifle the discussion with nonsense, and refusing to even consider what is being said for a second.
Don't bend, you might break eh? Again I suggest you read through this thread and stop just being a blind skeptic. Take your blinders off.

Unless the workers democratically own the means to produce it is not socialism, period. If it doesn't fit the definition then it is something else. No matter what lying political leaders call themselves.

Marx, Friedman, Adam Smith, et al, they are no longer necessary. Why? None of them considered a system as efficient as the internet. Therefore the text book answers they give are no longer competent to address the symptoms that plague our present day systems.

In sum, we cannot look to these 18-20th century texts to solve 21st century problems.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

In sum, we cannot look to these 18-20th century texts to solve 21st century problems.

I would agree with that to a point.

But we do need to understand what it was they actually said, in order to understand what is going on now.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

In sum, we cannot look to these 18-20th century texts to solve 21st century problems.

I would agree with that to a point.

But we do need to understand what it was they actually said, in order to understand what is going on now.

Then we have stumbled into a fundamental disagreement. I believe most of the 18-20th century economics gurus were theoreticians and they were not the practitioners.

Please take a look at Dr Salvador Allende's cybernetic economy that he was working on in 1973 when the US taxpayer financed CIA spent money to support the military coup.

The world economy is not run by theoreticians it is run by banksters and thugs. They are the tumorous growth attached to the world economy so they must be extracted before they kill the host. They are holding the world hostage and they will kill you before they give up their position. They know that the situation is desperate. That's why they need to be purged sooner rather than later.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Then we have stumbled into a fundamental disagreement. I believe most of the 18-20th century economics gurus were theoreticians and they were not the practitioners.

Huh? Yes they were theorists, we are discussing theories. What practitioners? You still think socialism has been practiced somewhere?

This is what you keep failing to realise, if the practice does not follow the theory then it isn't what it claims to be.

If I called myself a Christian and went around killing people, would you still think I was a Christian just because I claim to be?

Please take a look at Dr Salvador Allende's cybernetic economy that he was working on in 1973 when the US taxpayer financed CIA spent money to support the military coup.

The world economy is not run by theoreticians it is run by banksters and thugs. They are the tumorous growth attached to the world economy so they must be extracted before they kill the host.

Yes the economy is ran by capitalist bankers and thugs, what is your point?

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Hey Skyfloating, what "mistake" did I make about Norway...that they have socialized health care and welfare? Or that they are rich, so they can afford social programs..

You gave Norway as an example of a socialist country that looks great (compared to North Korea) as if Norway looking great had to do with socialism. I showed you that Norways wealth is not due to socialism it is due to the exporting of Billions of Barells of oil while having a population of only 5 Million. In other words, Norways wealth is due to Business, not socialism.

The "Norway card" is pulled in almost all threads on socialism with socialists claiming that Norway is well-off because of Socialism.

Instead of acknowledging this and saying you were mistaken, you then moved the goalposts to other countries. This is how socialists argue. They throw out counter-factual slogans and when these are debunked, they ignore it and move on to other slogans. This thread is a most excellent demonstration of that.

Despite having learned the facts about Norway I am quite sure I am going to see the "Norway card" played by you and others in plenty of other threads.

Norway is not a socialist country, it is social democrat. Its wealth is gained by selling huge amounts of oil while having very low population. Sweden, Denmark and Finland are not socialist either. Many of them have had right-center Governments in the 2000s and up to this day.

The reason Socialists keep referring to Scandinavia as "socialist" is because all actually socialist countries have collapsed, been involved in genocide and mass-starvation. Thats not good advertisement for socialism so they try to change the names of it ("Resource based Economy") or pretend that Scandinavia is living the marxist dream.

reply to post by ANOK


the worst part about all this is... i feel like by now I KNOW,, the world, economics, government,

are run by a lot worse then capitalist bankers and thugs... the very real travesties and universal crimes the creatures who rule have committed are beyond a few syllabled labels..

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Hey Skyfloating, what "mistake" did I make about Norway...that they have socialized health care and welfare? Or that they are rich, so they can afford social programs..

You gave Norway as an example of a socialist country that looks great (compared to North Korea) as if Norway looking great had to do with socialism. I showed you that Norways wealth is not due to socialism it is due to the exporting of Billions of Barells of oil while having a population of only 5 Million. In other words, Norways wealth is due to Business, not socialism.

The "Norway card" is pulled in almost all threads on socialism with socialists claiming that Norway is well-off because of Socialism.

Instead of acknowledging this and saying you were mistaken, you then moved the goalposts to other countries. This is how socialists argue. They throw out counter-factual slogans and when these are debunked, they ignore it and move on to other slogans. This thread is a most excellent demonstration of that.

Despite having learned the facts about Norway I am quite sure I am going to see the "Norway card" played by you and others in plenty of other threads.

Norway is not a socialist country, it is social democrat. Its wealth is gained by selling huge amounts of oil while having very low population. Sweden, Denmark and Finland are not socialist either. Many of them have had right-center Governments in the 2000s and up to this day.

The reason Socialists keep referring to Scandinavia as "socialist" is because all actually socialist countries have collapsed, been involved in genocide and mass-starvation. Thats not good advertisement for socialism so they try to change the names of it ("Resource based Economy") or pretend that Scandinavia is living the marxist dream.

Norway is well off because it has resources. Not because of 'business'. And because it plays by the Imperial rules unlike some of the failing 'not socialists countries' that you cite in your unrelenting,audacious,confused propaganda campaign against socialism.

Originally posted by theubermensch

Norway is well off because it has resources. Not because of 'business'.

So its the resources then? Wouldnt that mean any African nation would have to be richer than Norway?

Of course not. You have to make use of and sell the resources. Business means that Norway actually SELLS their oil to other countries.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I think the difference in Scandinavian countries, is that their governments are far more efficient than those in the US and UK. If ones government is efficient, provides good services and didn't waste any money, one would be far less likely to complain about that government.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I think the difference in Scandinavian countries, is that their governments are far more efficient than those in the US and UK. If ones government is efficient, provides good services and didn't waste any money, one would be far less likely to complain about that government.

Thats true. Scandinavians are extremely efficient. We can learn plenty from them.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

i do not accept your commie, socialist definition of capitalism.
history has tried communism, it didn't work.
there is no workers paradise.
take a pill, and get over it.