CDZ Commies and Marxists

[Boss]

Absolutely true. I neither wish to understate nor overstate the accomplishments of the modern capitalist democracies. Nor do I wish to in any way hide the dangers that we face, or claim that we have achieved things that we have not. Many claims are made for free markets which are unprovable and illogical. Quasi-religious, as I said. A new religion in which billionaires are the new prophets (profits?). Saint Trump of the Church of the Enormous God, the Best, Really, ya Know?

Greed and corruption are bigger problems today than they have ever been. Free markets do nothing to protect human beings from their own lowest impulses.

Well corruption and greed have been around a long time in human history. They always pose a problem for any society. However, like I said... with a free market capitalist system, greed is mitigated through market competition. If you're greedy and I am not, I will take your business away.... simple as that. In order to have the edge on your competition, you can't be too greedy.

I think I already addressed corporatism, which is often misconstrued as free market capitalism... it's not free market at all. It is a corrupt form of capitalism in collusion with government to leverage an unfair advantage and it's often driven by greed and power. Corporatism is actually a bigger threat to free market capitalism than Marxist Socialism. But we must be careful when trying to deal with corporatism not to throw the free market capitalist baby out with the bathwater. Too many times we see public policy implemented that hurts free market capitalists and many times these policies are pushed by the very corrupt corporatists we're trying to stop... because they are in collusion with the government.

I don't know what to do about the problem with billionaires.... You'd think a system that churns out more millionaires and billionaires than any system man has ever devised would be a good thing and it wouldn't be big problem, but apparently lots and lots of people have this hang up about the billionaires. I personally like billionaires and try to keep them on my good side. It's nice to have billionaire friends sometimes. They will pick up the tab for dinner... they pay their bills... they don't hassle you about the $20 you borrowed... they don't mind paying for quality....they tip very well... and generally speaking, they give pretty good advice on how to create wealth.

 

[numan]

[
There is no such thing as a greedy free market capitalist. If there ever were one, he was quickly dispatched by a less-greedy free market capitalist who took all his business. It's one of the really great things about free market capitalism. It's based on mutual voluntary transaction.

What a pie-in-the-sky Fairy Tale !!

Some people just can't comprehend that there are monopolies, oligopolies, crony capitalism, collusion, conspiracy, price-fixing, advertising brainwashing, planned obsolescence, pyramid schemes, hucksters, and narcissistic sociopaths like Don Trump !!

And yes, the Don was a double entendre ! ....
.

None of what you listed is free market capitalism. Sorry.

Oh, sorry. I thought you were writing about something that existed in the real world, rather than a simple minded utopian fairy tale which has never existed on anything bit the smallest scale and which never has the slightest possibility of existing for society as a whole.

My mistake.
.

 

[Boss]

Oh, sorry. I thought you were writing about something that existed in the real world, rather than a simple minded utopian fairy tale which has never existed on anything bit the smallest scale and which never has the slightest possibility of existing for society as a whole.

My mistake.

I don't know why you say that, it does exist here and it's what made America great. It has been eroded over the past century by little Neo-Marxists who think they have a better idea. You mention Utopia... that's pretty fucking ironic... Free market capitalism isn't Utopia but it's as close to it as free people can get.

 

[initforme]

Neither socialism nor Marxism is a threat to the US. If you call social security socialism then I guessdguessd we have it there. Try taking it away from people...I dare you.

 

[Boss]

Neither socialism nor Marxism is a threat to the US. If you call social security socialism then I guessdguessd we have it there. Try taking it away from people...I dare you.

Social Security is not Socialism. Sorry... just not what it is.

And you can "dare" all you like, whenever you can't afford to pay for something anymore, you don't get it. That's just the reality of the universe we live in. If you really care about that program you should be doing what you can to save it and preserve it now... but you all seem to want to ride your horse into the dust where you plan to sit and whine after it's too late.

 

[regent]

So what is socialism?

 

[regent]

Why is this still a big thing in America ?

The terms are rarely used in the UK where the Communist Party and its various sub sets could all meet in a phone box.

There are no communist MPs or local Councillors and to all intents and purposes the whole thing died when the wall came down.

And yet I see someone like Mr Sanders described as a "Commie" when he is clearly a moderate socialist.

Is this some sort of hangover from the Macarthy era or have you guys discovered something that has eluded the rest of us ?

I am not really interested in dry definitions of communism or what Karl said to Groucho before the First World War.

In my political lexicon there are only three countries in the world that have a form of communism and in all three it is on the way out.

North Korea - bizarre personality cult that will die out when people get sick of being starved by a lunatic.

Cuba - Starbucks and Macdonalds will bring that experiment to an end peacefully.

China - State control will crumble when people decide that economic success isnt enough.

So is it a real thing or just a reaction to any form of state intervention ?

Apparently the UK is lax in teaching about this. Communism is the ultimate objective and goal of Marxist Socialism. It's stated purpose is to facilitate the transition to Communism through control of the various components of power and resource.

The problem is, with the abysmal batting average for Communism, most modern Marxists must deceive us into believing they aren't Marxists. They invent new types of Socialism and make them sound like better ideas that have never been tried before. The ultimate objective and goal is masked and hidden because of the obvious shame in being associated with such a poor example.

 

[Agit8r]

Why is this still a big thing in America ?

The terms are rarely used in the UK where the Communist Party and its various sub sets could all meet in a phone box.

There are no communist MPs or local Councillors and to all intents and purposes the whole thing died when the wall came down.

And yet I see someone like Mr Sanders described as a "Commie" when he is clearly a moderate socialist.

Is this some sort of hangover from the Macarthy era or have you guys discovered something that has eluded the rest of us ?

I am not really interested in dry definitions of communism or what Karl said to Groucho before the First World War.

In my political lexicon there are only three countries in the world that have a form of communism and in all three it is on the way out.

North Korea - bizarre personality cult that will die out when people get sick of being starved by a lunatic.

Cuba - Starbucks and Macdonalds will bring that experiment to an end peacefully.

China - State control will crumble when people decide that economic success isnt enough.

So is it a real thing or just a reaction to any form of state intervention ?

Ya gotta remember that many conservatives are just Christian fundamentalists that haven't read the 4th chapter of Acts

 

[Elvis Obama]

Absolutely true. I neither wish to understate nor overstate the accomplishments of the modern capitalist democracies. Nor do I wish to in any way hide the dangers that we face, or claim that we have achieved things that we have not. Many claims are made for free markets which are unprovable and illogical. Quasi-religious, as I said. A new religion in which billionaires are the new prophets (profits?). Saint Trump of the Church of the Enormous God, the Best, Really, ya Know?

Greed and corruption are bigger problems today than they have ever been. Free markets do nothing to protect human beings from their own lowest impulses.

Well corruption and greed have been around a long time in human history. They always pose a problem for any society. However, like I said... with a free market capitalist system, greed is mitigated through market competition. If you're greedy and I am not, I will take your business away.... simple as that. In order to have the edge on your competition, you can't be too greedy.

I think I already addressed corporatism, which is often misconstrued as free market capitalism... it's not free market at all. It is a corrupt form of capitalism in collusion with government to leverage an unfair advantage and it's often driven by greed and power. Corporatism is actually a bigger threat to free market capitalism than Marxist Socialism. But we must be careful when trying to deal with corporatism not to throw the free market capitalist baby out with the bathwater. Too many times we see public policy implemented that hurts free market capitalists and many times these policies are pushed by the very corrupt corporatists we're trying to stop... because they are in collusion with the government.

I don't know what to do about the problem with billionaires.... You'd think a system that churns out more millionaires and billionaires than any system man has ever devised would be a good thing and it wouldn't be big problem, but apparently lots and lots of people have this hang up about the billionaires. I personally like billionaires and try to keep them on my good side. It's nice to have billionaire friends sometimes. They will pick up the tab for dinner... they pay their bills... they don't hassle you about the $20 you borrowed... they don't mind paying for quality....they tip very well... and generally speaking, they give pretty good advice on how to create wealth.

However, like I said... with a free market capitalist system, greed is mitigated through market competition. If you're greedy and I am not, I will take your business away.... simple as that.

I don't believe the self-correcting mechanism you refer to exists. I think it is a figment of a deluded POV, which attributes to free market policies all manner of illogical attributes. Can you offer any objective proof of your assertion? An example of this mechanism in action? To do this you must define what it means to be greedy.

 

[regent]

Every type of socialism and communism does not have to be Marx. Marx had one type of socialism called Scientific and one type of communism, we named after Marx. The USSR dropped scientific socialism a few years after the revolution and Marx's communism a short time later. Marx and the other socialists did not get along well. Can anyone name a nation that used Marx's socialism or communism.

 

[JBond]

Why is this still a big thing in America ?

The terms are rarely used in the UK where the Communist Party and its various sub sets could all meet in a phone box.

There are no communist MPs or local Councillors and to all intents and purposes the whole thing died when the wall came down.

And yet I see someone like Mr Sanders described as a "Commie" when he is clearly a moderate socialist.

Is this some sort of hangover from the Macarthy era or have you guys discovered something that has eluded the rest of us ?

I am not really interested in dry definitions of communism or what Karl said to Groucho before the First World War.

In my political lexicon there are only three countries in the world that have a form of communism and in all three it is on the way out.

North Korea - bizarre personality cult that will die out when people get sick of being starved by a lunatic.

Cuba - Starbucks and Macdonalds will bring that experiment to an end peacefully.

China - State control will crumble when people decide that economic success isnt enough.

So is it a real thing or just a reaction to any form of state intervention ?

Apparently the UK is lax in teaching about this. Communism is the ultimate objective and goal of Marxist Socialism. It's stated purpose is to facilitate the transition to Communism through control of the various components of power and resource.

The problem is, with the abysmal batting average for Communism, most modern Marxists must deceive us into believing they aren't Marxists. They invent new types of Socialism and make them sound like better ideas that have never been tried before. The ultimate objective and goal is masked and hidden because of the obvious shame in being associated with such a poor example.

UK politics is generally soft left or soft right. Extremists at either end dont get much traction. You also have to remember that our heroic Russian allies stood with us against Hitler.

Not really. Damn, I hate this forum and it's inability to quote a single post without multiple useless posts.

 

[Boss]

I don't believe the self-correcting mechanism you refer to exists. I think it is a figment of a deluded POV, which attributes to free market policies all manner of illogical attributes. Can you offer any objective proof of your assertion? An example of this mechanism in action? To do this you must define what it means to be greedy.

Well the self-correcting mechanism is the market or the consumer. It's not a delusion because it's how free markets work. It's hard to give you recognizable examples of greedy free market capitalists because they don't generally last long enough to be remembered.

I agree that "greed" is a subjective term but we constantly hear it used to define the capitalist... the greedy capitalist. My point is, in a free market system, there is no place for a greedy capitalist-- he is quickly replaced by a less-greedy capitalist who takes his business. No one wants to do business with someone who is overcharging them because they're greedy and just want to make more profits. They would rather do business with someone less greedy who offers a better price or value.

To illustrate the mechanics in action, let's look at Sears and Roebuck Co. It started as a mail order catalog in the late 1800s and began retail operations in 1925 (I think)... all through the 30s,40s,50s and 60s, Sears was the top dog in retail. They cornered every market and had their finger in every pie. You could even buy your home and car through Sears. In the early 70s, they had reached their apex. Virtually every major city had a Sears store, and they were generally located downtown in the retail district. But America was becoming suburban.

Okay, here is where the "greed" element begins to come in... Rather than Sears investing in new stores to meet the needs of the suburban consumer, they continued with their out-dated downtown model because it was cheaper to do that than to close those stores and open new ones in the burbs. As fewer customers passed through their doors, they had to increase prices in order to maintain profits. Along comes K-mart and later, Wal-mart. They opened the suburban locations AND offered lower prices on virtually the same products. Sears began hemorrhaging market share to K-Mart and then to Wal-Mart. The Wal-mart model would eventually eclipse K-Mart because of lower prices... less greed. In 2004, a bankrupt K-Mart bought out Sears and are currently trying to claw themselves back into the market. But the market keeps changing and now the consumer is even more driven by convenience, so retailers like Dollar General are emerging to fill that void.

It's not the best example in the world because there are certainly other mitigating factors as we don't exist in a vacuum. Market trends change, people's buying habits change, the economy goes up and down.... and we're talking "general retail" which encompasses a large piece of free market pie. But you get the general idea, the free market capitalist has to constantly pay attention to the demands of the consumer and there really is no place for greed. If greed is allowed to become a mitigating factor, it's not good. It almost always results in a competitor taking market share by being less greedy and more willing to satisfy the consumer.

 

[Boss]

Every type of socialism and communism does not have to be Marx. Marx had one type of socialism called Scientific and one type of communism, we named after Marx. The USSR dropped scientific socialism a few years after the revolution and Marx's communism a short time later. Marx and the other socialists did not get along well. Can anyone name a nation that used Marx's socialism or communism.

Karl Marx was inspired by Thomas More's Communist Utopia philosophy articulated in 1516. Utopia was a work of fiction and Marx, along with Friedrick Engels and others, wanted to make it into a reality. They created Utopian Socialism and the Communist Manifesto is supposed to be the blueprint for how to bring about the ultimate Communist Utopia. In the mid 19th century, Marxist-Leninism overtook Utopian Socialism in terms of intellectual development and at one time, most of the world's population was ruled by self-proclaimed Marxists.

You asked for names of countries who used Marx's socialism... well, Russia, China and Cambodia all used the basic tenets of Marxism and ended up with catastrophic results. Over 150 million people dead.... horror stories of human atrocity the likes we've never seen before. Brutal tyrant dictatorial regimes that simply crushed any and all dissent.

Like I said, the ideology is so tainted by horrible history that the modern Marxist is simply forced to identify as something else. And so they have... we now see the ideas bandied about of "Social Democracies" and "Democratic Socialism" which are simply the same toxic and poisonous Marxist ideas repackaged for human consumption.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I don't believe the self-correcting mechanism you refer to exists. I think it is a figment of a deluded POV, which attributes to free market policies all manner of illogical attributes. Can you offer any objective proof of your assertion? An example of this mechanism in action? To do this you must define what it means to be greedy.

Well the self-correcting mechanism is the market or the consumer. It's not a delusion because it's how free markets work. It's hard to give you recognizable examples of greedy free market capitalists because they don't generally last long enough to be remembered.

I agree that "greed" is a subjective term but we constantly hear it used to define the capitalist... the greedy capitalist. My point is, in a free market system, there is no place for a greedy capitalist-- he is quickly replaced by a less-greedy capitalist who takes his business. No one wants to do business with someone who is overcharging them because they're greedy and just want to make more profits. They would rather do business with someone less greedy who offers a better price or value.

To illustrate the mechanics in action, let's look at Sears and Roebuck Co. It started as a mail order catalog in the late 1800s and began retail operations in 1925 (I think)... all through the 30s,40s,50s and 60s, Sears was the top dog in retail. They cornered every market and had their finger in every pie. You could even buy your home and car through Sears. In the early 70s, they had reached their apex. Virtually every major city had a Sears store, and they were generally located downtown in the retail district. But America was becoming suburban.

Okay, here is where the "greed" element begins to come in... Rather than Sears investing in new stores to meet the needs of the suburban consumer, they continued with their out-dated downtown model because it was cheaper to do that than to close those stores and open new ones in the burbs. As fewer customers passed through their doors, they had to increase prices in order to maintain profits. Along comes K-mart and later, Wal-mart. They opened the suburban locations AND offered lower prices on virtually the same products. Sears began hemorrhaging market share to K-Mart and then to Wal-Mart. The Wal-mart model would eventually eclipse K-Mart because of lower prices... less greed. In 2004, a bankrupt K-Mart bought out Sears and are currently trying to claw themselves back into the market. But the market keeps changing and now the consumer is even more driven by convenience, so retailers like Dollar General are emerging to fill that void.

It's not the best example in the world because there are certainly other mitigating factors as we don't exist in a vacuum. Market trends change, people's buying habits change, the economy goes up and down.... and we're talking "general retail" which encompasses a large piece of free market pie. But you get the general idea, the free market capitalist has to constantly pay attention to the demands of the consumer and there really is no place for greed. If greed is allowed to become a mitigating factor, it's not good. It almost always results in a competitor taking market share by being less greedy and more willing to satisfy the consumer.

A pointless discussion, because you haven't defined your idea of greed, which as best I can tell is limited to pricing. Humanity has evolved greed throughout the millennia. It is a dance played out between businesses and governments. Any attempts to insert the interests of actual human beings into this corruption results in fierce suppression. Hey, remember labor unions? Weren't they cute? Greed is power over others. Greed is a rigged system. Free markets have about as much effect on greed in the real world as does cornflakes. Trickle down delusion. Feed the rich! Free the rich! Drop to your knees before the rich! Pffft. Unfettered capitalism can cure gout!! Just leave us rich folks alone to run everything!! Government regulation is the devil!!

No, the rich are not the world. They are an insignificant fraction of the world. They are mentally ill. They are useful, but they are mentally ill. It's like the old joke about the guy whose brother thinks he's a chicken. Why don't you take him to a doctor, he's asked? I would, he replies, but we need the eggs. The insanely acquisitive have always been with us. Some people are hoarders and fill their houses with junk. Others are money junkies and pursue that kind of obsessive, zero-sum insanity. But we need their eggs, the money junkies. We can't just throw a net over them. We do need to recognize their greed, and harness it. We also need to harness the collective might of the world's intelligence and labor. It requires a balance that an unbalanced mind cannot produce.

Pope: Greed of man will destroy the world

Get with it. Greed is what it always has been. A mental illness. Immoral behavior fueled by mental imbalance. A form of self destructive behavior which needs to be controlled by rational people, lest it destroy us all, as it came too close to doing eight years ago.

 

[Boss]

A pointless discussion, because you haven't defined your idea of greed, which as best I can tell is limited to pricing.

Not pricing... pricing is a formula. Profiteering is greed. In a true free market capitalist system, there is no place for greed. The greedy are left with no business. The successful free market capitalist is the one with the least greed.

Now... Greed does happen. It's a fact of life we can't do anything about. And there are greedy capitalists... corporatists are a form of greedy capitalist. They are not free market capitalists. The corporatists exploit the powers of government which they are in collusion with, in order to leverage an advantage over their competition.

The remainder of your diatribe is Marxist propaganda. It is designed to group all capitalists together as one and label them as "greedy" so they can be systematically destroyed. You're repeating all the elements of class warfare. Free enterprise liberates people from class. You can be a part of any class you like in a free society.

 

[Elvis Obama]

A pointless discussion, because you haven't defined your idea of greed, which as best I can tell is limited to pricing.

Not pricing... pricing is a formula. Profiteering is greed. In a true free market capitalist system, there is no place for greed. The greedy are left with no business. The successful free market capitalist is the one with the least greed.

Now... Greed does happen. It's a fact of life we can't do anything about. And there are greedy capitalists... corporatists are a form of greedy capitalist. They are not free market capitalists. The corporatists exploit the powers of government which they are in collusion with, in order to leverage an advantage over their competition.

The remainder of your diatribe is Marxist propaganda. It is designed to group all capitalists together as one and label them as "greedy" so they can be systematically destroyed. You're repeating all the elements of class warfare. Free enterprise liberates people from class. You can be a part of any class you like in a free society.

Nope. This has become boring. Once again, you provide no coherent definitions of your terms and no real world examples of any of the things you state. You fail to define greed and you fail to define free markets.

Marxist propaganda. A knee jerk reading of what I wrote. What I wrote about is myth and folklore, not Marx. Human nature, not philosophical theory. Philosophy comes along and tries to explain human nature, and to suggest improvements in it. Do we really need it to recognize greed? I've never suggested that private property is wrong and I made it quite clear that entrepreneurial energy is essential. All I've suggested is that a rational, independent entity, usually referred to as a government, is required to keep the acquisitive lunatics in line. You say, let the loonies play! What is the rational basis for that? Corporatists are not free marketers, huh? Most economists I've heard express an opinion say either that free markets never existed, or long ago ceased to exist. How will you prevent corporations from dominating markets? Regulation? I thought that was forbidden. By wishful thinking?

Do we have free markets? Most say no. Did we ever have free markets? Opinions vary. Can we ever get to a system of free markets? DEFINE IT. Then we can discuss the likelihood of achieving that goal of "freed markets", though I'd be dishonest if I did not express my skepticism. Why? GREED. CORRUPTION. The inevitable tendency of all human institutions to succumb to bureaucratization and decadence.

 

[Boss]

A pointless discussion, because you haven't defined your idea of greed, which as best I can tell is limited to pricing.

Not pricing... pricing is a formula. Profiteering is greed. In a true free market capitalist system, there is no place for greed. The greedy are left with no business. The successful free market capitalist is the one with the least greed.

Now... Greed does happen. It's a fact of life we can't do anything about. And there are greedy capitalists... corporatists are a form of greedy capitalist. They are not free market capitalists. The corporatists exploit the powers of government which they are in collusion with, in order to leverage an advantage over their competition.

The remainder of your diatribe is Marxist propaganda. It is designed to group all capitalists together as one and label them as "greedy" so they can be systematically destroyed. You're repeating all the elements of class warfare. Free enterprise liberates people from class. You can be a part of any class you like in a free society.

Nope. This has become boring. Once again, you provide no coherent definitions of your terms and no real world examples of any of the things you state. You fail to define greed and you fail to define free markets.

Marxist propaganda. A knee jerk reading of what I wrote. What I wrote about is myth and folklore, not Marx. Human nature, not philosophical theory. Philosophy comes along and tries to explain human nature, and to suggest improvements in it. Do we really need it to recognize greed? I've never suggested that private property is wrong and I made it quite clear that entrepreneurial energy is essential. All I've suggested is that a rational, independent entity, usually referred to as a government, is required to keep the acquisitive lunatics in line. You say, let the loonies play! What is the rational basis for that? Corporatists are not free marketers, huh? Most economists I've heard express an opinion say either that free markets never existed, or long ago ceased to exist. How will you prevent corporations from dominating markets? Regulation? I thought that was forbidden. By wishful thinking?

Do we have free markets? Most say no. Did we ever have free markets? Opinions vary. Can we ever get to a system of free markets? DEFINE IT. Then we can discuss the likelihood of achieving that goal of "freed markets", though I'd be dishonest if I did not express my skepticism. Why? GREED. CORRUPTION. The inevitable tendency of all human institutions to succumb to bureaucratization and decadence.

Well most of this is just common sense. It's not difficult to understand and doesn't require every term to be defined so as to satisfy you. In fact, that sounds like a convenient excuse to reject something on the basis that you simply can't comprehend it. Free markets are the free voluntary exchange of commerce between two parties. What is hard to understand about that? I have something you want, you have something I want, we freely volunteer to trade and we're both satisfied. When this is allowed to happen unfettered, it works brilliantly.

Do we need some governmental measures to ensure people don't cheat or corrupt the system? Sure we do! The problem is, we have to be careful that what we allow government to do is not controlled by crony capitalists and corporatists, which they very often are. We also have to ensure the government measures aren't interfering with the mechanisms of free markets, which they often do... supply and demand... voluntary exchange... picking winners and losers, bailouts for the "too big to fail", price caps and freezes, and even tax incentives and subsidies are government interference with the mechanisms of a free market. Our solutions are not more government interference but LESS.

I have no problem with anti-trust laws to prevent a capitalist from cornering the market on all competition through monopoly because monopolies are not free market capitalism. I have no problem with laws against price-gouging in times of disaster. Again, this is a free market transaction between parties and it's voluntary but the free market capitalist is exploiting the circumstances through greed. I don't have a problem with reasonable environmental protections from free market capitalists who might seek to exploit opportunity to profit out of greed. Fair trade practices, truth in advertising, consumer protection... I don't have a problem with reasonable government regulations or rules to deal with these circumstances. I think you need to have that... It's like... You know how you're free to go downtown to the public square and walk around, congregate and talk, etc.? Well that doesn't mean you shouldn't have police there to protect the free public or that their presence there renders the public square NOT "really" free.

So it may be correct technically to say that we never have achieved a 100% free market... but that is what we should strive toward because free market works beautifully. We can talk all day long about the bad things that happen in absence of a free market... that simply illustrates why free markets are so much better.

 

[Moonglow]

Businesses used to want be million dollar operations, now they are billion, and working on a trillion..