reply to post by MOSTwanted
Technically there's no such thing as pure capitalism clearly.
Well it it exists as a model for a society solely dedicated to capital, because of its lack of social considerations (even if it includes a
perspective that socially things would get balanced because there may be capital gain from that, for example consumerism derives from an attempt to
optimize the returns from what was previously a society predicated on work/production that arose from industrialization, consumerism is purely based
in capitalistic dogma). But yes technically you are correct "pure" capitalism can't survive implementation especially if implemented in a finite
The Queen of England runs American social security, through the privately owned United states corporation charted under the Virginia company
This does not compute. Considering that social security in America is mostly a misnomer, especially if we consider the US at least before the end of
the civil war. Social security didn't exist so I think you are talking about taxation. I also think you have very confusing ideas, capital is only
important in a capitalistic oriented system. Socialism is as you stated a middle ground for communism and in economic terms the only viable option
(for a beneficial society) in an environment where there is economic competition, because communism can't compete with any system that operates to
reward individuals in place of the whole society. Consider that socialism and communism can operate without currency no other model can as currency is
among other things a way for social control (facilitating stratification, speculation, interest, taxation, accumulation of wealth etc.) on the other
hand socialism and communism need mass production (as to satisfy society needs) the same is not true to more capital oriented systems that can extract
value from non-productive means for some individuals in detriment to others.
Central banking has Robbed the wealth from the globe so yes its one big cancer.
Agree but that has to do with capital and greed from a group of individuals, so I'm lost on how you can mislabel the system that promotes those
The goal of collapsing the world economy is population control and communism.
That is debatable but as you are stating it, it makes no sense since communism as a system if for the benefit of the commune (society), that is all
the population. So if there are entities that pursue a collapse of the world economy for system changes and population control you need to look to
systems that benefit only a select few and have diminished social considerations. To the extreme right of the spectrum, Fascism for example.
Socialism institutes stealing, the state grows like a cancer until it consumes the host.
No it does not, any inefficiencies are due to governmental corruption, incompetence or external pressures (like economic competition).
Socialism can only provide to its society in exact relation to social spending of other competitors plus economic surplus. This is why even in mostly
socialist Europe the crunch is being felt when the US decided to open the WTO to nations that run at a level that have less social/environmental
considerations. This is also a reason why the US has always offered less in those regards, in comparison to Europe, its need to be economical viable
in competition with Asian and South American Nations.
America these days is a socialist society.
That wouldn't be how I would describe it but yes all societies tend to pursue socialistic goals, it took time but with the elimination of
dictatorships and a change in other societies that permitted social improvements keeping a disgruntled population is harder so at least in apparency
socialism is becoming the norm but one needs only check the distribution of wealth of a nation to understand how deceitful it is on social justice.
Most people are naturally good, and under common law society could thrive. But the world is under statutory law, which is corrupt to serve the
privileged classes and government servants as they have taken over the people.
I'm all for a simplification of law but statutory law only indicates legislative power. I do not understand how could you run any complex society
without it. Common law is harder to maintain, scrutinize and more prone to injustice even if it can be more versatile. Since I'm European except for
England there is no common law IIRC. I also note that systems that use common law tend to be abuse litigation procedures and once again more
vulnerable to in their processes to unfair advantages given by personal power and connections.