Why I Cautiously favor Capitalism over Communism

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
In order to keep capitalistic markets fair "regulation" has to be significant because quite frankly there appears to be little morality/ethics in the capitalistic system. Thus such morality and ethics will have to be legislated in order for the capitalistic system to actually be fair and beneficial to society.

The biggest problem with such a system is that profits control the direction we take as a society. As such, endeavors that are not profitable but would be very beneficial to society are never undertaken. We all know there are better ways but the capitalistic structure does not allow us to pursue those avenues.

I am a believer of socialism for basic needs and capitalism for everything else. This would give people the ability to eschew the for profit system entirely if they were so oriented, but yet would also let the capitalist exploit to their hearts desire.




posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


Here's my hope:

Capitalism does lead society in the direction of profits. But, it is the consumers that drive these profits. So, it is possible that if ethically acceptable products are in demand, then capitalism can allow for basic needs to be taken care of with greater efficiency. For example if people would favor companies that have a direct impact on how their community functions.

I think the market for ethics and social responsibility has a lot of potential. And if the products that provide people with basic needs and build a better society become ubiquitous as the result of a free market, then that is a more authentic development than legislative initiatives.

This ideology is completely reliant on the prospect that people use their freedom to become better and more responsible.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


Almost any ideology would work the problem is human nature. There is not one that is better than the other because essentially people with bad ethics always seem to gravitate to power regardless if they are in a communist, socialist or capitalist environment. They will pervert anything to work in their favor.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Very well written essay. Great job. Your thoughts are clear and well expressed, and it reminds me a lot of myself when I was your age. Keep researching, reading, learning, and keep an open mind; your understanding will grow as a result. I will say this, though, In regards to defending capitalism/democratic/republic systems, it is not the best, but the best we have come up with so far. Capitalism promotes progression like no other. This is obvious if look at the technological advancements in this last 200 years in this country alone.

Every philosophy, government, ideology, religion, etc. comes with its own apparent ethical and moral dilemmas. This is not because there is a flaw in the system, but because there is a "flaw" in people. We all have our own perspectives, and perspectives are relative (see Einsteins theory of special relativity). There is no perfect system and there never will be. The real question is whether humans can evolve to the point of tolerance where you do your thing, and ill do my thing, and everybody is happy (unlikely).

Oppression is never the answer. This is obvious if you just read a little world history. Wealthy people shouldn't have to give up a dime anymore than a blue collar worker should give up his/her taxable wages to a state that is going to mishandle and misrepresent one's personal endeavors. If you want to feed the hungry, whip out your check book. If want to support single mothers, whip out your check book, but no man on the face of the planet should decide for you how to spend your worth. The work you produce is yours. What you build, create, invent, improve, earn using your mind and your two hands is yours and yours alone. I'm not a cold person. I wish we could feed everyone and provide adequate healthcare to everyone on the planet. We simply cannot. No system will fix that...only people. That's why communities work better than trying to convince millions of people have the same ethics and morals. I hope you find your worth beyond a system. If you do you'll understand what I'm talking about, and you'll become more accountable and far more sufficient at doing the right thing than any government.
I realize this is a bit choppy, but this is a very large and broad topic and I'm in a rush.

Just some thoughts.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
In order to keep capitalistic markets fair "regulation" has to be significant because quite frankly there appears to be little morality/ethics in the capitalistic system. Thus such morality and ethics will have to be legislated in order for the capitalistic system to actually be fair and beneficial to society.

The biggest problem with such a system is that profits control the direction we take as a society. As such, endeavors that are not profitable but would be very beneficial to society are never undertaken. We all know there are better ways but the capitalistic structure does not allow us to pursue those avenues.

I am a believer of socialism for basic needs and capitalism for everything else. This would give people the ability to eschew the for profit system entirely if they were so oriented, but yet would also let the capitalist exploit to their hearts desire.



I agree with you about regulation. When the sector i worked in was heavily regulated by government things were much better for the consumer and the employee. The company was expected to invest in its employees and infrastructure. Now with de regulation they cut back tom a bare bones work force and they invest nothing into infrastructure. I am still using equipment from the 1970s.. equipment that existed before i was born. Customers see a drop in service but with little choice since companies like mine are basically a monopoly. CEOs receive massive bonuses and they pay huge dividends to their foreign investors.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


Both are hopelessly failed economic ideologies. The scam is in getting you to think that there are only varying degrees of two different ways of thinking.

Read up on the economic theory of Utilitarianism and the writings of Jeremy Bentham (a contemporary of Adam Smith).

In fact...I would assert that MOST people who THINK they are "capitalists" are ACTUALLY Utilitarians in a similar manner to the way that Gary Johnson asserted that MOST people are actually Libertarians...but simply don't realize it.

In the most general and basic terms Socialism/Communism requires that the INDIVIDUAL SACRIFICES for the betterment of the masses. Capitalism/Fascism requires that the MASSES SACRIFICE for the betterment of a select few...most of whom inherited their station in life. Utilitarianism operates on the assumption that you are intelligent enough to know when EITHER the masses OR the individual getting screwed.

Here are the chief tenets and differences in the Utilitarian philosophy:

1. "Value" and "Price" is based upon "UTILITY" not scarcity. That is to say...something which is rare MIGHT be of great value to me...but it is so ONLY if I have a use for it. Note this "use" includes trading or selling for something else I want more. Thus, my desire of having Micky Mantle rookie card in mint condition is explained NOT for the fact that there aren't many of them (in terms of strict supply & demand)...but because I want the X millions of dollars I can sell it for. Thus, if everyone woke up tomorrow and realized that it's just a stupid piece of cardboard with a picture on it...the Mickey Mantle card would be utterly worthless as it has no intrinsic value whatsoever. (Now...think about fiat currency, the Federal Reserve, and our ethereal digi-dollars and/or monopoly money. Hmmmm...I wonder why you don't hear about Jeremy Bentham very often, huh??)

2. "Each must account for one and not one for more than one." - Direct quote from Jeremy Bentham. You see...way back in the 1700's we already had the answer to whether or not "corporations are people". They are not. And the reason DOESN'T have to do with "free speech"...it has to do with DILUTING THE VOTES of your fellow citizens. The Koch Brothers can each vote AND SPEAK their mind wherever they want to...JUST LIKE YOU CAN. By equating money with speech and corporations with people it allows the Koch Brothers voice to be "louder" due to the profits from their business. Note that "profits" are nothing more than the amount of productivity a worker produces which the owners take away from the employee and keep for themselves (hmmm...sorta like a "tax" in a roundabout way...isn't it?) Thus the Koch Brothers have come to account for "more than one" which is anathema to Utilitarianism. Similarly...over-leveraged derivative trading, bubble economies, and unfettered market speculation are also not possible because "one CANNOT account for more than one". This remains true whether we are talking about people, votes, or selling the same bundled mortgage securities 10X over and wondering why the investment doesn't have any value anymore.

3. "The greatest good is that which creates the MOST happiness for the GREATEST NUMBER of people"- Direct quote from Bentham. Bentham isn't a delusional hippie...he realizes that there will ALWAYS be some people who are rich and some people who are poor. He just thinks that the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE AND THE MAJORITY OF SOCIETIES WEALTH OUGHT to fall somewhere in the middle. You know...THE MIDDLE CLASS!! He's all for free enterprise, and accumulating wealth...just not with the idea that say...1% of the population controls 50% of the wealth while the other 99% sit around S.O.L. Sound familiar? After all...since EVERY OTHER RANDOM HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC such as intelligence, height, hair color, eye color, 40 yard dash times, etc are distributed according to the NORMAL DISTRIBUTION (i.e. "Bell Curve")...wouldn't we ALSO expect that wealth should be as well if "the system" is perfectly fair and everyone REALLY DOES have a roughly equal "shot" at success??

To date...no one has been able to explain to me why the middle two quartiles of the American population does not control damn near EXACTLY 68.2% of the nation's wealth with Z-scores ranging from -2 to +2 and the sum of Stanines 2-8 being 92%. Certainly if "wealth" was a function of "intelligence", "talent", "determination" or any other human characteristic besides simply having money in the first place that would be EXACTLY what we would find. You see...Utilitarianism ACTUALLY rewards MERIT more than BIRTHRIGHT in the manner that capitalism PRETENDS TO



Anyways...hope it helps. Seriously...read Bentham's works. I think it's the answer you've been looking for.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Unrealised
True Communism, i.e- working for the community, shall never be attained by the ugly, greed-driven people our planet is made up of now.



Until the day comes that people wake up and realize that we're a global community, the dollar shall rule you.



Communism for the win.


True communism is unatainable because people are not insects. Some will not want to work, if they can get just as much as a worker. Some will try to work on the side to get more value to themselves personally. If you wanted to get fresh vegetables in the Soviet Union, you didn't go to the collective, you went to the black market. People would just do enough to get by on the collective and then would go home and work backyard gardens and sell the vegetables on the black market because they could get a direct benefit from their labor.


"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff"
-Frank Zappa.





posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by votan
 


I tend to agree with you. The problem isn't any of man's ism's, it's is their propensity to immoral, selfish behavior. Neither system works in truth as we live on a planet of finite resources. Eventually we will hit the wall and then all the ism's in the world won't save us. We live on a planet of people who are basically live their life according to this philosophy. I'm doing it too, I don't care much for society at large. I've gotten little more than abuse from society, so why would I care eh? I worry about my own, the people who love me and that's it. Heap on top of that the abuse I see visited on people daily and well, I just don't care anymore. People like me are the problem, bitter and old at heart.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Thanks a lot, good stuff. I'll be looking into this some more. Not familiar with it, the only economic philosophers I've really ever looked in to are Keynes, Marx, and Smith.

So, beyond limiting the ability of corporations and special interests to influence legislation would a shift to utilitarianism require government intervention? On wealth distribution, it sounds similar to socialism...would this be ideally done through graduated taxes or a general shift in the values of the society. Would it be possible to practice this type of economics without publicly owned industries?

As far as eliminating aristocratic inheritance, I suppose there could be a near 100% inheritance tax.

I think I generally understand the philosophy behind this, not sure about the practice. If you'd elaborate a bit I'd appreciate it. Meanwhile, I'll run a google search and read up a bit.


ETA: From what I gather initially, utilitarianism seems to be more a system of ethics to apply to capitalism in order to make it a more just system, not an economic system in itself. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding.
edit on 12/10/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
To be quite honest, capitalism is not the free market or entrepreneurship. Capital is money or assets to work with, independent of government. It's saying that if you got it (it being money), you have more power...this would be true in any artificially co-opted social order (loosely, could be government, but not necessarily...consider units of social cohesion smaller than the State that are constantly altered by one member's disproportionate access to capital: households, gangs, corporations).

We don't live in a truly free society, there are controls - explicit through written law and implicit through social norms, prejudices and access to capital (or not) as a birthright...the pesky estate tax enters the argument here. There's choice and there's illusion of choice. In North Korea or Soviet Russia, glorious leader receives 99%of the people's vote. Let there be no illusion, there is no choice there. In the good old USA, two candidates with rather identical ideologies receive 99% of the vote as well, of course the majority of that 99% goes to one of the two, who is then elected. we had a choice, right? Well, not really...we had the illusion of a choice.

Healthcare or Romneycare or Obamacare or the "mandate"...whatever word you choose to describe it, is, at face value, no different than the charter schools...privatization wrapped up in a pretty bow of sunshine and warm gushy feelings. At the end of the day, you've just strengthened the consumer pool for insurance companies.

"But wait...," you say, "if somebody can't afford insurance, the State is going to pay for their insurance on the exchange!"

Yeah, so? How is that different from Charter school vouchers or Medicare vouchers or Farm subsidies or subsidies to Petrochemical or Pharmaceutical corporations?

It's still YOUR tax money going towards paying for a service that does not exist "as is" but rather for a profit. So, in other words, whether we're talking Obamacare or charter schools, rather than the government running a universally desired and required service (I.e, healthcare and education) at cost with your tax dollars, you now have the government passing the buck - quite literally - to private, for profit corporations. Talk about bloating the budget...

And don't believe for one second that the "insurance exchange" will create competition and lower prices. We already have monopoly laws on the books, right?

Ok, fine, but explain to me how my scenario above comparing glorious leader's 99% of the vote to Democrats and Republicans' 99% of the vote is any different than microsoft only versus Microsoft or Apple; or Verizon only versus Verizon, AT&T, TMobile and Comcast, for that matter.

I like Coke and you like Pepsi, but at the end of the day we're both just drinking corn syrup and food coloring.


Anyway, like you said, the capability is there, but the impetus to NOT do those things (meaning business owners or bureaucrats honestly helping with food, education, shelter, etc.) is almost always legislated into the system. The truth is, laws, private property, the State...these are all figments of our imagination. They continue to exist because we believe in them and put stock and faith in them - both actively and passively, as we have been engrained to do since birth. And most people would work as a family or community unit in close proximity to kin or neighbor.

However, modern society is anonymous and that's why most governments in the world today are, at the long and short of it, just power hungry machines with a ruling class of elites (somebodies who actually get a face in the crowd. Below them,, a small percentage of wannabes, "gatekeepers" who control access from the elites to the next rung on the ladder. You can call them the bourgeoisie, the middle class, or just slaves with whips (whatever historical metaphor you want to use). The lowest, but largest rung, is made up of the diverse, restless masses. The differences that you call socialism, capitalism, or communism are nothing more than nuanced control mechanisms that have been adopted. It's all really just tyrannical fascism, if you ask me.
edit on 10-12-2012 by Sphota because: "Those things" was ambiguous, so I defined them



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
So, beyond limiting the ability of corporations and special interests to influence legislation would a shift to utilitarianism require government intervention?

Utilitarianism in a general sense believes in laissez-faire economics so long as MOST of the people are relatively "happy". Bear in mind...this is the 1700's so Bentham didn't have an answer for whether private companies or the EPA should be responsible for monitoring nuclear waste or the carcinogenic chemicals in the river any more than Adam Smith or even Keynes did. There are simply certain issues we face today that were inconceivable in the 1930's...much less the 1830's. Thus, my interpretation is that Bentham would have left well enough alone and let the people VOTE for how they want to handle these sorts of things...the one difference is that "if one can account for one and no more for one" your vote actually means something and the politicians aren't all bribed into submission. I think we can solve most or even all of our problems if we simply didn't allow the propaganda machine and lobbyists to decide elections for us. Wisdom of the Crowd and all.


On wealth distribution, it sounds similar to socialism...would this be ideally done through graduated taxes or a general shift in the values of the society.
Bentham is indifferent. Taxes are neither inherently good nor inherently evil...they are just a tool. Kind of like the NRA's argument that "guns don't kill people...PEOPLE kill people". It's all about how, when, and IF, taxes are imposed and WHAT'S ACTUALLY DONE with the revenue that's gained. He's big on "don't fix it if it isn't broken" so one would imagine that during the 1950's he might have left something welfare up to private charities since there was a STRONG AND ROBUST MIDDLE CLASS. He would probably have been VERY MUCH AGAINST the INITIAL implementation of LBJ's "Great Society"...but probably NOT things like useful infrastructure improvements in the Appalachia. However, in TODAY'S economy I think Bentham would be sharpening the guillotine blade up for Romney and Boehner.


Would it be possible to practice this type of economics without publicly owned industries?
You bet. Bentham was ALL ABOUT the merchant and tradesman classes in Europe and (like most Europeans in the 18th century) was BEYOND envious of the degree of freedom enjoyed in the New World. Bentham viewed ruling monarch's as largely detestable...but mostly because they came from a privileged class who could not relate to actual human beings and had a propensity to kill a lot of peasants in ridiculous wars of conquest or religious causes. However, he VERY MUCH agreed that a government of ANY KIND was RESPONSIBLE for the happiness of it's people and that the people were ENTITLED to their basic needs being met. In other words...the idea that it's illegal for a starving person to shoot the "kings deer" is 100% BS to Bentham. There is obviously open land and there is obviously food which goes to waste...there is no reason anyone should be without a hut/cottage, clothing, a full belly, etc. Bentham would have considered cold indifference to these sorts of things as damn near an act of war.


As far as eliminating aristocratic inheritance, I suppose there could be a near 100% inheritance tax.
Bentham doesn't address this question EXPRESSLY...but one gets the sense that he would admire Warren Buffet's will. Buffet is leaving each of his kids $1,000,000 and each of his grandkids a large trust fund for their college expenses. The other $50 Billion goes to charity. His reasoning being that #1 he has ALSO helped his kids out all along the way with their houses, cars, education, weddings, etc. and #2 that if you REALLY LOVE your family you won't hand the world to them so they can become drug addicts on their trust funds....or worse...a rich prick politician who thinks he actually DESERVES the wealth he fell into...you know, Mitt Romney. Hand-ups are good...hand-outs are really, really, bad.


I think I generally understand the philosophy behind this, not sure about the practice. If you'd elaborate a bit I'd appreciate it. Meanwhile, I'll run a google search and read up a bit.

Well...Bentham would be lost on practice today too...just as Adam Smith would be. BOTH were coming up a solution to the failures of MERCANTILISM..."Capitalism" didn't exist yet.

However, I think Bentham is important because it's a formal theory that is a bit of a synthesis between the two unattainable Visions of Utopia Americans have been (fruitlessly) chasing since we had Puritans and Plantation Owners. The beautiful part is that it doesn't require ANY new systems OR abolishing any existing systems...it would just use the tools avail. in a different way, thus making it more REALISTIC of an option than anything else I've heard.
edit on 10-12-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting
edit on 10-12-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Communism doesn't work because its against our basic monkey natures. We don't want equality and no matter how hard you try to impose equality we will re-create a social power structure.

Unless you start tampering with our DNA the best you can come up with a system that provides equality of opportunity for all.

Thats basically the Star Trek utopia. If energy cost could be brought near zero that might eventually be achievable, but not anytime soon.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

Indeed... Communes were a short lived thing..and still are, as they are being practiced in some places now. (Errr.....times are repeating themselves in many ways, huh?) I debated whether to even post anything because you and I agree on most things and here, it wasn't disagreement either. Just a different way of looking at it, really.

As you or I talk to folks in a debate or discussion and note the past examples of political systems for what worked and what didn't....some little determined 'fellow' is running around behind people like us, carrying their little red book and noting that 'See... It DID work and those old people lie! See! It worked here ..here..and here! Old people are foolish and young people are wise!' ...and yes...wording is deliberate as history truly is repeating itself in a different place, time and language.

it's almost as if those who supported this in a past time....decided they liked it so much then, they'd spend a few decades making it happen here, eh?
edit on 10-12-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: rephrased a line



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

Indeed... Communes were a short lived thing..and still are, as they are being practiced in some places now. (Errr.....times are repeating themselves in many ways, huh?) I debated whether to even post anything because you and I agree on most things and here, it wasn't disagreement either. Just a different way of looking at it, really.

As you or I talk to folks in a debate or discussion and note the past examples of political systems for what worked and what didn't....some little determined 'fellow' is running around behind people like us, carrying their little red book and noting that 'See... It DID work and those old people lie! See! It worked here ..here..and here! Old people are foolish and young people are wise!' ...and yes...wording is deliberate as history truly is repeating itself in a different place, time and language.

it's almost as if those who supported this in a past time....decided they liked it so much then, they'd spend a few decades making it happen here, eh?
edit on 10-12-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: rephrased a line


LOL. So true and so well put. You made me laugh and nod in appreciation,



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I have also felt that a good analogy is this: Capitalism can be likened to a force, like fire. Fire can warm your house, cook your food smelt metals, and many useful things. Fire can also kill you. Its the difference between a controlled and an uncontrolled force. Capitalism is the same way. Properly controlled, it can benefit many and create a very good standard of living for many. Uncontrolled, it tends to be under the control of fewer and fewer hands until it creates the disaster we see now. Communism is a bad system for EXACTLY the same reason, too much control in too few hands. A properly regulated democracy that employs a regulated capitalist system (what we used to have) will create a good standard of living and create a first world society. Unregulated capitalism will create a plutocracy which will lead to fascism and a high standard of living for a ruling class and abject poverty for everyone else.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
I have also felt that a good analogy is this: Capitalism can be likened to a force, like fire. Fire can warm your house, cook your food smelt metals, and many useful things. Fire can also kill you. Its the difference between a controlled and an uncontrolled force. Capitalism is the same way. Properly controlled, it can benefit many and create a very good standard of living for many. Uncontrolled, it tends to be under the control of fewer and fewer hands until it creates the disaster we see now. Communism is a bad system for EXACTLY the same reason, too much control in too few hands. A properly regulated democracy that employs a regulated capitalist system (what we used to have) will create a good standard of living and create a first world society. Unregulated capitalism will create a plutocracy which will lead to fascism and a high standard of living for a ruling class and abject poverty for everyone else.


EXACTLY!!

Economic Theory isn't a damn religion. You won't burn in the eternal hellfire of damnation if you switch teams on certain issues or under certain conditions. "Capitalism" and "Socialism" are JUST TOOLS. They have no inherent properties one way or the other. A hammer is a useful tool...but you will get a much cleaner cut with a saw than you will beating the board into two pieces with a blunt object.

What's important is that you are using the RIGHT tool, at the RIGHT time, in order to produce the RIGHT result.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Communism, along with socialism, was simply a labour movement for worker ownership of the means of production. It gained a lot of support and the working class, pre-WWII, were predominately socialist. Even in the US. The Spanish revolution of 1936 was supported world wide and would have spread across Europe.

What happened in Russia, for example, was not communism. The Bolsheviks appropriated left-wing terms simply to gain support, in order to take state power.

There were different organisations all struggling towards worker ownership, who had different ideas as to how to go about making the move from capitalist economy to socialist economy. A lot of confusion comes from people taking the ideas of these organisations, such as Marxism, and equating their ideas with the definition of communism/socialism.

The first socialists were known as Utopian Socialists. Robert Owen is one of the most well known utopian socialists.


Robert Owen (1771-1858)

Robert Owen was a man ahead of his time. During his lifetime, he endeavoured to improve the health, education, well-being and rights of the working class. This driving ambition to create a better society for all took him around the world, from a small mill village in Lanarkshire in Scotland to New Harmony, Indiana in America with varied success. Although, he encountered much criticism and opposition in his lifetime, he influenced reformers who came after him and many of his views are as relevant and resonate today in their modernity and progressive nature.


www.robert-owen.com...
.
Then in 1840 a French socialist, Joseph Proudhon, published his work, "What is Property (An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government)".

etext.virginia.edu...

Proudhon was the first to describe himself as an Anarchist in print. He was a supporter of mutualist socialism.


Mutualists, like other classical anarchists, originally considered themselves libertarian socialists. That is, they believed in the labor theory of value, and they believed that the laborer was entitled to the full product of his labor.


Are Mutualists Socialists?

This influenced many socialists to become anarchists. Marx was influenced by Proudhon, even though, just like with Bakunin, they disagreed over the necessity of the state.

Proudhon And Marx

The argument over the state is what divided the left labour movement. The Marxist wanting a temporary state system and a political path to socialism, and the Anarchists wanting a direct path and immediate change to socialism. They shared the same ultimate goal, an end to capitalism and a change to a socialist economy, the workers common ownership of the means of production.

It had nothing to do with political parties until the beginning of the 1900's when the Marxists started becoming politicians, and for example in the UK they formed the Labour Party. Originally the Labour Party was a workers party set up to represent workers interests. Long story short WWII decimated the working class, and post WWII the Labour Party was taken over by middle class liberals. Liberalism was turned into the new-left in order to keep the working class from regaining their pre-war power. Social climbing was encouraged over worker solidarity.

Communism and socialism mean the same thing BTW.


Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this.....


Socialists Do Stand for Equality 1936

Post WWII the propaganda machine went into overdrive as the victors grappled with their new found power in Europe. The establishment capitalist class didn't want the working class becoming powerful again, as their goal was world economic domination, NWO if you like.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


There is a difference in corporate capitalism (which we have) and free market capitalism (what we had at one time).

Corp. cap. also tends to have the government in its pocket while a true free market would leave the government to do what is supposed to do...keep things fair between states and protect from foreign threats.

The thing about socialism and corp cap is they both devolve into despotic rat holes ruled by a few oligarchs.

You mention the stuff about middle class being able to "give more". Is this by mandate or by choice? In a truly free market economy and society, there shouldnt be a welfare class of any real size. If there is, (exluding the severely physically/mentally handicapped) they pretty much deserve it for being lazy. The welfare state is part of the reason why we are where we are.

Attention Welfare parents having a kid AFTER receiving welfare....your outta here. I dont work 40+ hrs so yall can kick back and breed!

Other excess government tax and spending also needs to be done away with. Got a senator or representive jobs? Maybe one of the supremes? President? 5 digits and you top out. Period. No life long health care, no secret service, nothing.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


"The basic principle of modern state capitalism is that costs and risks are socialized to the extent possible while profit is privatized" I am not sure who said this but they knew what they were talking about. Felonious post above is right on target as well imo.







edit on 10-12-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by felonius
There is a difference in corporate capitalism (which we have) and free market capitalism (what we had at one time)


Not really. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

Corporations are simply capitalists collectivizing for their own interest.

Corporations are a part of capitalism, always have been.





top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join