Capitalism-despite its dishonorable intentions-is a bad form of govrenmen

[Taverner]

Not just a copycat, but my point - Capitalism has indirectly murdered more than Communism ever has!

[Squatch]

1. Capitalism is a form of government?

News to me.

[bloom]

4. "America is the corporations."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4058847#4059072


- maybe you didn't get the memo

[Another Bill C.]

2. Capitalism is an economic system

but not a system of government (unless you want to count all those politicians who are bought and sold).

I don't believe there's anything in the constitution requiring a particular economic system.

[Grooner Five]

3. Capitalism has comfortably fed more people...

...than Communism ever will!

Communism is nice, I'm sure, but I like having socks and rice cookers that I can buy with my own money instead of having them rationed by the likes of Fidel Castro.

[bloom]

6. Capitalism has also starved more people...

"The US and Britain are putting the multinational corporations that created poverty in charge of its relief"



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1521411,00.html

[Grooner Five]

8. I was under the impression...

...that poverty had been around for as long as mankind has. It's good to know that I was wrong, and it was brought to us by corporations instead. What a relief.

[bloom]

9. "poverty had been around for as long as mankind has"

Yeah - if people say that enough - they don't have to worry about what their government/corporation is doing.

[Grooner Five]

11. Am I wrong?

When did they come out with poverty, anyway? 1963?

[Selatius]

80. It's how you define poverty that is the sticking point

Yes, by western standards, Native Americans were a poverty-stricken people if we were to measure them by what they own and how much they own, but Native Americans might argue that their way of life was sufficient for survival. They were able to give themselves shelter, able to feed themselves, and able to take care of themselves. In modern society, there are people who are not able to give themselves shelter, not able to feed themselves, and are not able to take care of themselves. This is more true if we look at nations in the 3rd world, not counting, for instance, the 45,000,000 who are so poor in the US they cannot even afford basic health care.

[indigo32]

71. Have you read

confessions of an economic hitman?

You should

[bloom]

84. I've just started reading it.... eom

[K-W]

10. Modern poverty is not the same as historical poverty.

Because we have had the technology for a very long time to feed, house, and clothe every living human.

You cant compare poverty due to actual scarcity to poverty due to inequitable distribution of resources.

[Grooner Five]

13. Who will pay for it?

That technology isn't cheap, of course.

[K-W]

18. I think even poor people deserve to eat.

As far as who should pay for it, I dunno, the people who arent starving perhaps?

[Grooner Five]

19. What does "deserve" have to do with it?

We're dealing in reality here, I hope. Feeding, clothing, and housing everyone on earth would cost an untold fortune, and doesn't even begin to address the problems of sustainability and upkeep. Will "the people who aren't starving" continue to pay for this feeding, clothing, and housing until the end of time?

[K-W]

20. I guess it means nothing to you. but weve already established that

And it wouldnt cost a fortune, even though the US has plenty of fortunes, many of which were built using resources stolen from areas that are now in poverty.

And nobody is suggesting we dont also help them build the infrastructure to feed themselves, but right now the industrial nations are purposely keeping these nations from working for self sustainability. Commercial development or no development is the option we give them.

[Grooner Five]

21. What development is there besides commercial development?

I mean, if these starving and homeless people are going to keep eating, and not get used to living on the charity of others, aren't they going to need jobs in companies that produce income?

What sort of development did you have in mind?

[K-W]

24. Things that dont neccessarily turn a profit.

You know, like food sources for poor people. Water for poor people. Homes for poor people, healthcare, education, environmental protections, democratic government. Stuff like that.

[Grooner Five]

31. And how would you sustain them?

If they don't turn a profit?

Homes, healthcare, education, environmental protections and the like are all products of systems that can sustain themselves - they do not spontaneously appear, and could not be financed indefinitely through charity. Everyone has to work for a living.

I'm starting to think you haven't thought this stuff through at all, if you're thinking Western nations could afford to just "gift" those things to the underdevoloped parts of the world. We have them here through decades and centuries of hard work, investment and labor.

You're putting the cart before the horse, at best, or just having a pipe dream at worst.

[K-W]

53. Easy, by not commercializing them.

As long as you never commercialize a system, profit is never an issue.

Profit only matters if the system is owned by someone who will shut it down if they arent making a profit.

And the self sustaining system is called a society. The same as everywhere, and yes people need to work to produce things, which is why they should have the chance to work on projects that dont neccessarily enrich foriegn investors or local land barrons.

[northzax]

32. so we can create all that?

the things you cite are often contradictory. Do you support protection of forests, or deforestation to create cropland? Should we damn rivers to create water supplies for irrigation, sanitation and drinking, at the cost of fisheries and wetlands? There is not enough energy being produced to bring everyone up to Western standards of living, are you willing to have electricity for two hours a day so that someone else can have a TV as well? What about genetically engineered food and chemical pesticides? if we can increase the productivity of every acre of farmland but using those techniques, should we?

I know it all sounds simple, but from a resource productivity issue, it's realy not.

[K-W]

54. That wasnt really what I meant.

I didnt mean to say that it would be at all easy, or even that we are responsible for doing it, simply that these are things that will never be done as long as we continue to insist that 3rd world nations organize thier economies around foriegn investors as we insist they do now.

It will take time and effort for these nations to develop healthy societies, but that process wont start until we remove the idea that only through laissez faire capitalism can development occurr.

[northzax]

58. on the contrary

the only success stories are those directly tied to foreign capitalist investment. Ireland, Korea, Taiwan, Chile...all developed strong capitalist systems, lifted their people out of abject poverty using direct foreign investment.

[K-W]

61. I dont have time to get into these issues now,

so I will just agree to disagree on that statement.

[northzax]

63. I would be happy to have you cite an example

of a country that has dramatically increased its per capita income over the past 45 years without the use of direct foreign investment. The only exceptions I can think of are petro-states, hardly a model for anyone else.

[K-W]

64. I dont think the issue is that simple.

But like I said, this is a very big topic and I dont have alot of time atm. Hopefully next time I will.

[northzax]

68. on other words, you ain't got one?

because there aren't any, save a few very small places that can thirve on tourism and unregulated banking?

oh, I see. non-capitalist ideas were just about to work, but then the big bad US of A came along and beat the brothers down. in many cases, you are looking for 2-3 centuries of indigenous progress to take place in a decade. That cannot happen without outside capital.

[K-W]

70. Why do you insist upon taking advantage of me?

I made a simple request of you, that because I did not have time to discuss, we just end our discussion, but instead you are just taking cheap shots at me.

Do you think your strawman arguments are going to encourage me to debate you?

[northzax]

73. ok, I am willing to accept your non-answer

you don't have a simple one, a one name answer, and don't have time, that's fine.

Am I somehow wrong in stating that you cannot name a single country that meets the standard you set? I'll be here all week, simply hit the bookmark function and let us know when you have time. I'd love to know about one.

Thanks.

[K-W]

74. Wow, you still cant leave it alone can you.

I will answer your question when you can present me with proof that nations who attempted or planned alternative development strategies in the last several decades were given an equal opportunity to trade in the global economy, and were allowed to proceed unhindered by the worlds main powers.

Because unless you can establish that all forms of development were given an equal chance to perform, your argument is bogus.

[northzax]

76. and I have asked you for the name of one of those

states. Strange, you want a different model, but one that interacts with the global community. so you want someone to have access to trade, without playing by the same rules internationally. I posit that such a country does not, and never has, existed for very long it turns out that, unless a country has a precious natural resource, say, petroleum, the only thing they have to sell on the international market, the only thing they can compete with other nations on, is labour. You aren't taking developed nations to do this, you're taking undeveloped nations, ones without infrastructure, without education systems, without capital, without industry. All those things take time and money to develop. I can list many other development models, but the fact remains that you cannot participate in the global economy and not be subject to relentless competition. if you can make me a t-shirt for $15, and your neighbor can make it for $10, guess who I'm buying from? Without rapid industrialisation, most countries, quite frankly, have nothing to sell, if you don't have something I want to buy, you can't trade with me, can you?

it's not me playing rhetorical games here, you made a statement, I asked for an example. you said you didn't have time, so I said you could do it anytime this week, you said I needed to provide you with an example to butress your arguement (!) all of which leads me to believe that you have no clue what you're talking about in this field. Emotional complaints about oppression and intervention are fine and dandy, but I prefer data. Cough it up, admit you don't have any, or simply go away.

for someone without any time, you sure are spending a lot complaining about me.

[K-W]

78. What does trade have to do with development model?

The internal structure of an entity has nothing to do with trade between entities. You seem to be confusing trade with free market economics where national economies are not destinct.

The rules? heh, who made those rules?

That is exactly my point. There are rules about who can and cant trade, and those rules are made by the countries that dominate the global economy.

I agree with you that no nation has yet existed that has been allowed to persue an alternative development model without isolation and/or harassment.

[northzax]

81. you brought up trade

in your previous post I will answer your question when you can present me with proof that nations who attempted or planned alternative development strategies in the last several decades were given an equal opportunity to trade in the global economy, and were allowed to proceed unhindered by the worlds main powers.

you cannot have economic growth without trade. period. At no time in history has a society experienced sustained economic growth without trade, trade is how economic growth happens. It is how goods get added value, how specialisation of the workforce is possible, how everything is possible. You can argue about the rules of trade, sure, but the simple rule is that people will seek the greatest advantage. That is not always price, but it usually is. So if you can't sell me anything, you are dependant on my charity, or that of others.

If you want something I have, usually technology, you either have to give me something in return, or depend on my charity, right? And since the advances that made life easier in the past century, everything from electrical generation to water purification to medicine and machinery all belong to someone else, you either have to buy it from them, beg it from them, or create it yourself. the second two aren't really all that practical for everything, are they?

There are, as I said, societies that have in certain ways rejected the western development model, the Bushmen of the Kalahari remain hunter-gatherers, many Aborigonal populations in Australia remain connected to ancestral lands and ways, certainly there are populations in remote areas that reject everything modern, save that which they develop themselves (even the Amish count) but they are exceptions, and certainly not ones that are sustainable beyond a small, isolated population. And even they have difficulty maintaining their youth in the lifestyle.

[rogerashton]

36. Not untold at all.

The best research has "told" the answer to this question, and it is embarrassingly small.

[Grooner Five]

37. Well, lay it on me.

Educate me about this "best" research.

[rogerashton]

40. You can google as well as I can.

Try "basic need."

It has been a while since I taught economic development -- 1998, I think -- and memory is not especially reliable, but if I remember correctly one authority estimated that malnutrition could be eliminated with eight-tenths of one percent of world grain output.

Actually getting it to the people who need it is another thing, of course -- but that's the point. It is a political problem not a problem of resource scarcity. We have resources enough. What we do not have is the will.

[Grooner Five]

43. Eliminating malnutrition

is a far cry from paying for the feeding, clothing and housing of residents of underdeveloped countries, and then sustaining that indefinitely by creating a system that doesn't focus on profit.

It will take a lot more than grain to make that happen, I believe.

[rogerashton]

90. That's a classic "straw man" argument

and as such unethical rhetoric.

[bloom]

49. "World Bank Oversees Carve-Up of Congo Rainforests"

"Environment, development and human rights groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) today called on the World Bank to halt or change projects that will lead to the parcelling-out of tens of millions of hectares of Congo's rainforest to logging companies <1>.

In a statement issued today <2>, more than 100 groups said that plans for the 'development' of DRC's forests would have "major repercussions for the rights and livelihoods of millions of Congolese citizens, with serious and irreversible impacts" on the forest environment.

The World Bank, together with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), is supporting the development of comprehensive new forestry laws in the Congo, as well as the 'zoning' of the country's entire forest area <3>.

Internal World Bank documents obtained by the Rainforest Foundation reveal that the Bank is aiming to 'create a favourable climate for industrial logging' in the Congo, and envisages a 60-fold increase in the country's timber production <4>. In a letter to Hilary Benn, Secretary of State for International Development, the Rainforest Foundation has asked the UK Government to intervene to halt the Bank's plans."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20040213&articleId=211


Seems like the joys of capitalism involve some people taking whatever they can and then they turn around and say, "what people are starving? - it must be something they did or did not do.... and now you expect me to do something about it... bah, humbug".

Uncontrolled greed. That's what I'm talking about. And it fits very nicely with capitalism.

[Bouncy Ball]

87. Hey Grooner Five,

ever looked at how much the US spends on its defense budget every year?

If we shaved just 5% off of that, we could fully fund public education AND give healthcare to ALL Americans and more. Anything more than that, say 10% off the defense budget (and it would still be in the BILLIONS, mind you) and we could solve the problem world-wide of hundreds of millions without access to clean water.

Talk about taking a bite out of terrorism!!!

[patcox2]

17. And in the capitalist countries, we do so.

And then we send a little bit of the extra we produce as charity to Africa.

Now, is african poverty the result of corporations? Of course, you will say yes, that and colonialism. But really, what was the standard of living of tribesmen before colonialism?

Having spoken to a few africans, its funny to me, they all say exactly the same thing if asked whats the problem in Africa; corruption. Government corruption.

[northzax]

39. corporations create poverty.

socialization creates poverty. simply because, when no one has anything save that which they create themselves, no one has anything, therefore poverty cannot exist, if it defined by the relative absence of something. The very act of adding value to something creates poverty, because there will always be an opportunity cost for that creation, and an entire society cannot have a new innovation simultaneously. You could not define the Bushmen of the Kalahari as 'poor' prior to their contact with outsiders, because there was no 'rich' Hobbes would have been proud.

[patcox2]

44. Semantics, rhetorical games.

Cleverness like that is amusing and gratifying to the ego, but it has little to do with the real world.

On the whole, were the Bushmen better off? With an infant mortality rate of what, 90%, and a life expectancy of what, 30?

Compare with the US, where the corporations have "created" poverty, based on your silly philosophical argument that no one is poor unless someone is rich.

Who is better off?

The fact is that we do house, feed, and clothe all of our people, even the very poorest. The poorest american is better off than the average khoi-san 200 years ago (isn't that the proper name for the "bushmen?).

Look what the corporations have done to us. By your logic, of course, we should be the poorest country on earth.

Corporations may be a bugaboo to you, but they are just one of a whole bunch of social-societal-legal institutions that the western, civilized countries have developed, all of which together have absolutely and unarguably resulted in a higher standard of living for all of the people than for any other society ever in the history of the world. Corporations are not the most important, but they are essentially collectives, just like a commune, they allow collective action on scales beyond that which any individual could achieve, and in fact, are probably more benign than any individual with great resources would be. The only evil about modern corporations is the disconnnect between ownership and control and the way management thus lacks accountability. More important than corporations would be stable governments (civil wars are hard on people, tribal warfare is no better, anarchy is worse). Relatively honest government is also a great factor. And the law, and more even than the law, the social rules which promote acceptance and reliance on the law. These social mores and institutions are a technology, and those civilizations which possess this technology have thrived, and those which lack this technology do not thrive, they descend to barbarism.

[northzax]

45. boy, did you misread that one.

oh well.

[patcox2]

50. Sorry, guess I did.

Ooops. Its hard sometimes, I am sure you have seen the posts where its really, really hard to tell whether its sarcasm or serious.

[bloom]

41. "Government corruption"

I'm sure there are lots of factors. But the ones that concern me the most and what I think we share some fault in are the factors that our government creates and or practices that it allows and encourages on behalf of US/multinational corporations. Creating unfair subsidies for our products so they can't market theirs, unfair trade polices and such.

I think people assume that the poverty is ALL due to factors like climate and problems of their own making. I think it's a matter of people being misinformed - or believing what they want to believe.

I think people want to believe there is fairness or something. But the way the game is played - the G8 countries have all the cards. And let others have what they don't want. That's how I see it.

Seems like there might be less government corruption if the deck wasn't stacked against them.

Some voices from Africa (I imagine it varies by country):

The biggest disappointment will be with the vague commitments the G8 has reached on trade - even Mr Blair admitted that he would have liked to have gone further here, to reach agreements on specific dates for the phasing out of subsidies.

Cotton farmers in West African countries like Burkina Faso and Mali, and sugar cane farmers in southern African countries like Swaziland and Malawi, will derive little comfort from the G8 meeting.

Barnaby Phillips : South Africa

Many Africans were looking to Gleneagles to tackle what they see as the main obstacle standing in the way of the continent's development - an end to agricultural subsidies in the developed world, which cripple African producers' attempts to earn money on the international market.

The Zambian Deputy Finance Minister Felix Mutati said: "What we need most is fair trade because our farmers cannot compete with farmers in the West.

"The whole issue of trade hinges on farm subsidies and the quicker this is resolved the better."

Adam Mynott : Kenya

But there is also scepticism about whether the money saved will ever be used to benefit the needy.

Many feel the root cause of poverty in Nigeria is not a lack of aid, not the draining effects of debt and not even, in an oil-reliant economy, unfair trade terms.

Instead, it is the way that the estimated $360bn (£207bn) Nigeria has earned from crude oil since the 1960s has been squandered or stolen by successive regimes.

Anna Borzello : Nigeria

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4665671.stm

[Mairead]

42. "They all say the problem is government corruption"

And where did government come from? Yep, the 'White settlers'. As with the aboriginal Americans and the Arabs to name just two, the traditional African basis for group organisation is kinship: the tribe. Imposing an alien layer on top of traditional forms practically guarantees it's not going to work well. It gives the few who are adept at 'robbing with a fountain pen' free rein.

[patcox2]

46. Oh yes, and the tribes lived an idyllic, perfect existence.

Sure.

[Mairead]

69. No, but they lived THEIR OWN existence. Which is how it should work.

[northzax]

30. poverty is a relative term, ain't it?

can you explain what your workign definition of poverty is? is it not having the resources to provide simple, basic food and shelter for yourself, leading to starvation? cause in that case, there are fewer people in poverty in the western, developed states today than in any time in history. In fact, there are fewer people in the world who are literally starving to death, or in real, imminent danger of starvation than at any time in recorded history.

People can live below the 'poverty line' in the US today at a standard that billions around the world would kill for. Which is not to say it isn't terrible, but terrible is a relative term.

[bloom]

47. "I" was referring to poverty all over the world:

At the start of the 21st century 1.2 billion people live in abject poverty. More than 800 million people go to bed hungry and 50,000 people die every day from poverty-related causes.


Poverty exists because of the choices we make. It exists because we have:


•insufficient and ineffective aid

•an unjust global trade system

•a debt burden for poor countries that is so great that it suffocates any chance of recovery

•an unwillingness to invest enough in social development

http://www.makepovertyhistory.ca/e/what.html

Read also:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1521411,00.html

[northzax]

51. so, if we can provide to every person in the world

protection from the elements, access to clean water and 1,200 calories a day, there would be no more 'poverty'?

[bloom]

56. What I would like to see

is fair trade for one thing. Global laws for multinational companies would be a good idea.

I think there is an economic genocide going on.

I hate this business of people pretending to be benevolent - while they privatize another's country for their own benefit.


"protection from the elements, access to clean water and 1,200 calories a day" would be wonderful thing for a lot of people.

[northzax]

62. define fair trade, if you would

paying someone an equivalent amount for the same product? if a textile worker in the US makes $25/hour, do we need to pay the exact same amount to a worker in El Salvador? Or a relative amount, based on average earnings there? In a country where $5/day makes you solidly upper middle class, does paying $25/hour make sense? what if the only valauble resource a country has is cheap labour? Is it not better to use that resource than not use it? If I'm a company, why am I going to pay anyone more than the market will bear?

[bloom]

65. I think it's reasonable

to expect labor standards. Minimum wages based on some formula or another. Also reasonable working conditions. I think it hurts everybody when some people are allowed to be exploited. In some places - it's little different that slavery - the conditions people work under. Places where people are forced to work on fenced in plantations with armed guards patrolling.


FSTV & LINK TV have programs occasionally on this subject.


It's not like I'm the first person to suggest such a thing. Some sites:

http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.php?file=25032002112729.htm

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/fairtrade/

http://www.ifat.org/

[northzax]

72. who's labor standards, exactly?

ours? a 40 hour workweek? 35 hours? FAML? 3 weeks vacation? 4 weeks? 401K? pensions? age limits (18? 21?) There is certainly slave labour in the world, and that needs to cease, along with indentured servitude. And public pressure on corporations to reform labor practices of subcontractors overseas is crucial. But you cannot make a blanket statement about what 'fair trade' since it differs everywhere, unless you are willing to state that certain cultural practices are better than others.

[bloom]

82. So how about you?

Do you consider yourself to be a neo-liberal. It sounds like it from your posts.

[northzax]

86. actually, I'm a traditional realist

approached from a liberal, humanist perspective. I am a capitalist, although I choose to define capital from a human perspecive, not simply a monetary wealth system. I know that, as long as there are material goods, there will be people without as many material goods as others, and that will define 'poverty' at that period in time. All of that does not mean that it is acceptable to have anyone who cannot afford the bare minimum of food and shelter. Charity is not a sustainable method to permanently end shortages of either.

does that make me a 'neo-liberal' whatever the hell that is? then ok. Theory is fabulous, it really is, and I can argue the appropriate theories with you all day, believe me, I know all the arguements, I've read all the literature, and written all the white papers you'd ever want to see. On the other hand, I choose to live in the real world, with real world examples of what has worked, and what hasn't worked to improve the lives of people in the short term, as well as the long term, in the real world.

[bloom]

88. neoliberalism as described by wikipedia folks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

"The term neoliberalism was coined by Conservative Republicans to describe a political-economic philosophy that had major implications for government policies beginning in the 1970s – and increasingly prominent since 1980 – that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the economy (that complements private initiative), focusing instead on achieving progress and even social justice by encouraging free-market methods and fewer restrictions on business operations and economic development. Supporters argue that by implementing business-friendly policies, a society can assure that its businesses grow, creating jobs and other economic benefits which improve the welfare of the entire economy. This is commonly referred to as 'trickle down economics' or 'Reaganomics.' Detractors tend to think that government intervention is necessary to create an equitable society.

It can be contrasted with economic nationalism, fair trade and anti-capitalism, three different alternatives to neoliberalism.

The term "neoliberalism" has also been used in a theological sense as a drive to deliberately modify the beliefs and practices of the church (especially evangelical) to conform to cultural post-modernism. This entry concerns only political-economic neoliberalism."

see link for:

1 Brief discussion

2 Brief history

3 Theory

4 Practice

5 Who is a neoliberal?

6 See also

7 External links

------

It's not liberal in the way I think of liberal - but is liberal by European accounts.

[northzax]

89. well, that wouldn't be me

as I said, I like to live in the real world, voodoo economics doesn't work in any real world I've ever been in!

[ThomWV]

5. What You Need To Understand

Is the difference between an economic system and a political system. They are not the same thing.

Aside from that, there is not good and no bad in any sort of economic system, there is simply an ability to function over time or not. Communism never killed anyone, but a group of corrupt states which used, to one extent or another, the model of communism as their economic system did indeed murder quite a few people.

[K-W]

7. For those of you confused by the government/economics destinction

You need to think outside the box on this one.

The only reason we devide government and economics is because in our country the economy is run by non-governmental organizations. They are both forms of government, we just call one government and one the economy.

From an objective standpoint all social organization where power is centralized is government and corporations certainly count.

[SteppingRazor]

12. Neither capitalism nor communism ever killed anyone

A given economic system is never inherently evil. It's up to the people who use the system foor commerce to decide its morality. Capitalism could be a perfectly moral, decent economic system. If only we were more moral, decent people.

Saying captialism kills people is like saying you can fight a war on terrorism -- abstract nouns never did anything to anybody.

[K-W]

14. Remember, this thread is satire. EOM

[Grooner Five]

16. I disagree...

I think the need for killing is built right in to communism, because it depends on the removal of free choice for individuals.

Not every individual is going to along with that scheme, necessitating their elimination (or indefinite incarceration at the minimum).

That's why Stalin had to conduct his purges in order to "modernize" the Soviet Union under Communism.

[K-W]

23. You completely misunderstand communism

"I think the need for killing is built right in to communism, because it depends on the removal of free choice for individuals."

Wrong. Communism aims at giving all people maximum freedom. You are confusing communism with one party states. In one party states (whether that party is the Communist party or a right wing party) people who arent loyal to the party must be removed to sustain power.

That is why Stalin purged, to keep power. Nothing Stalin did resembled in any way communism.

[Garfield Goose]

33. Out of curiosity

What country fulfills or has fulfilled your definition of communism?

[K-W]

55. easy, not a single one

As I read it, the fundemental aspect of communism is communal ownership, something that to my knowledge has never existed in a nation state.

The nations that claimed to be communist were illigitimate state socialisms where the government as a tool of the people holds the property, but of course none of those governments were the tool of the people. Thier lack of democracy disqualified them from pretty much any leftist philosophy. Thier claims should be viewed along the lines of Kings who claimed to be ruling on behalf of thier subjects.

[Grooner Five]

34. Communism gives maximum freedom?

How come every communist regime on earth has offered the exact opposite of your claim?

Freedom to what? Have government determine your destiny?

[K-W]

60. You are confusing organizations with a philosophy.

The whole point of communism is organizing the society so that basic needs are met efficiently and with a fair distribution of labor and benefits so that everyone has the opportunity to persue fufilling, independent, lives.

Obviously you will see that the countries you are thinking of were lying through thier teeth when they claimed to be communist.

[RandomKoolzip]

15. Capitalism is a great system.

As long as it's heavily regulated.

What we got going on in this country is not capitalism, it's a constant corporate scrum with no rules and designated losers and winners.

[K-W]

26. I think a closer reading of history will show you that

capitalism is a system that always supports some form of elite scum with no rules and deisgnated losers and winners.

[RandomKoolzip]

29. "Scrum," not "scum."

Although both apply.

[rinsd]

38. The same could be said of communism...(nt)

[rinsd]

22. True, Communism prefers its murders to be direct!

[slackmaster]

25. Capitalism is an economic system, not a form of government

:hi:

[K-W]

28. Economic governance is still governance.

That we call only part of our societies government 'Government' does not change the massive extent to which private organizations in our society govern large portions of it.

[trackfan]

27. A mixed, pragmatic approach, rather than any fixed system

probably works the best. That's just a hunch though.

[theboss]

35. Capitalism is not a form of government

Just sayin'....

[sintax]

48. Capitalism

is and always has been a rapacious and brutal manner of arranging the structures of society. It does and always has superceded any form of governance, and is therefore a higher form of governance. It Is not an economic system it is a financial arrangement and a means of constructing a certain social order.

Serfdom

Privatizing the benefits to a few elites and socializing the burdens for the rest.

Economic=Stewardship

Capital=Control (Originally livestock,food,labor etc. now MONEY i.e. Wage Slavery)

[raysr]

52. Needs stringent

government regulation or greed rears it's ugly head. The market place DOES NOT take care of itself.

[welshTerrier2]

57. actually, capitalism IS a form of government

many in this thread have pointed out that capitalism is an economic system ... and, of course, they're right ...

but when capitalism achieves its ultimate goal, which inevitably is the super-concentration of wealth and power, it, in reality, becomes a form of government ...

powerful, profit-seeking corporations are able to wield so much power that they are able to dictate the government's agenda ...

while they attempt to indemnify themselves by maintaining the pretense of democracy, ultimately the government in a capitalist system answers only to the demands of the rich and powerful and does not serve the best interests of the people ...

as the rich grow richer and richer and the the middle class is destroyed, all government activity is designed for no other purpose than maximizing corporate profits and maintaining stability and control for their markets to flourish ...

in the end, capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist ... capitalism devours democracy and essentially becomes a form of government ...

[ArkDem]

59. This should bring out the intellectuals......

opps, it already has!

[Disturbed]

66. Corporatism= Fascism

It seems to me that Amerika is headed in that direction. For many years I have held the belief that Amerika is a Plutocracy. I still believe that it is but now it is heading toward Fascism. Both dominant political parties seem to be mostly complicit with that direction.

[Taverner]

67. Here's why

As indicated in previous posts, Capitalism is not just an economic system. It has become the government.

In capitalism, everything is for sale. EVERYTYHING. The ulitmate aim of any capitalist business is to objectivise and commoditise everything. People, land, food, air, water...everything.

So naturally, politicians sell themselves to the highest bidder unless there are enough checks in place to prevent this.

So when the businesses take over, their goal is complete consolidation. Of course, the businesses rarely see what happens after that - stagnation and inflation. Stagflation, if you remember the 70's. When this happens it is not pretty for anyone - not the businesses (remember everything is based on growth - if there are no competitors, there is no growth)

And naturally, those that have, will do whatever they can to maintain that wealth, and everyone else will suffer.

[mmonk]

75. capitalism isn't the problem

Influence is.

[moondust]

77. It's great if you're a xillionaire.

But smaller, poorer countries that do not have large quantities of something that millionaires and billionaires want, such as oil or sweatshop labor, could probably do better with something else that does not pit people against one another.

[sophist]

79. How so?

Look at North Korea vs. South Korea, where would you rather live?

[Canuckistanian]

83. "Enlightened Self-Interest", my ass...

Enron. Worldcom. HealthSouth.

Nestle. Archer Daniels Midland. Tyson Foods.

Hoffman-LaRoche. Genentec. Pfizer.

Unocal. Exxon. Chevron.

Litton Systems. Rockwell International.

Thiessen. Volkswagen. BASF.

Halliburton.


Criminal citizens, all of them. Yet all continue to exist and to profit.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.