hipeter924
Not a zombie yet
I said capitalism as a whole meaning every type of capitalism.
Rabid anti-socialists are often unable to rationally distinguish between different varieties of capitalism, inaccurately defining liberal and social democratic capitalism as "socialism," and ironically serving as the allies of progressive socialists, since Anglo-Saxon capitalism is doomed to increased inefficiency and social ills.
By the way Soviet state capitalism, there was no such thing. I doubt you can find many people of note (on any side) to back up your theory. The Soviet Union was a Communist state. What idiot said otherwise?
Incorrect. As for those who claimed that the Soviet Union was not a "communist state," you might want to consider the leaders and supporters of the Soviet Union, for one thing, who adopted a Marxist-Leninist conception of transition to stateless communism through a socialist "workers' state" of the Soviet variety. None would have been so absurd as to claim that communism has been established in the Soviet Union. Regardless, there are several grounds for rejecting the myth of the Soviet Union as socialist, the chief reason being that socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. A socialist conception of property rights is typically related in some manner to use-value, which implies that any legitimate form of socialist ownership must necessarily include managerial control in some capacity. Hence, since a party elite and bureaucracy managed the affairs of the Soviet Union rather than any collective body, it therefore did not satisfy the necessary criteria of socialism.
What a load of rubbish. A free market economy is ultimate goal of capitalism, but just like its counterparts of communism and socialism the economy never ended up reaching its ultimate goal. But unlike Communism and Socialism it is thriving and can reach the ultimate goal of a free market economy.
A free market economy is a utopian fantasy with no application whatsoever out of the textbook, and is as effectively as preposterous as the neoclassical conception of perfect competition. Communism has rarely been established and only on a primarily agrarian setting when it has, but it is incorrect to claim that socialism has not been established, since libertarian and democratic forms of socialism have previously enjoyed the benefits of successful existence (at least for a time, in some cases), whilst we can determine what the successes of market socialism theoretically could be by extrapolating empirical data regarding the superior efficiency of worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives.
The Capitalist free market is happening...free trade deals aren't for nothing mate. Its the opening up of a new competitive environment...so your idea that free market capitalism stops competition sounds like its straight from a bit of soviet propaganda...its a nice story but not the true one.
Trade liberalization often has similarly adverse impacts and consequences, which accounts for the U.S.'s historical reliance on protectionism rather than adopting the neoliberal formula that the Washington Consensus now prescribes for others. The most obvious example of the benefits brought about by "fair trade" is the protected development of infant industries, which thereby maximizes dynamic comparative advantage in the long run.
I am tearing my hair out about how wrong your statements are. I am beyond the point of arguing with you. From this point on I believe you are insane. Don't worry I meet people like you all the time. I tend to ignore their theories because communism is fantasy nothing more...whereas capitalism is what runs the world. We need to invent a time machine...Stalin would love to meet you.
PS: Anarchist-Communism is the way communism is supposed to end. Stalin and the merry happy figures of communism failed you by keeping all the power to themselves. Communism can only fail...that's what is was built to do.
Note to self: Ignore Nemesis for reasons of continued sanity
Last edited: